[rawr]

Just give us the 16MP sensor from the D4 / DF and be done with it!

My request is simpler: just give us something better than a 3-D printed plastic mockup!

[Kunzite]

A manually polished wood mockup?

[VoiceOfReason]

A manually polished wood mockup?

Make it with that red lacquer from the special 645D!

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

Cant please everyone

I bought a high MP D810 and a low MP Df - I'm happy

[patarok]

I bought a high MP D810 and a low MP Df - I'm happy

sure you are on the right tide sailor?
D'ya know the common of piscary?? away... away... bss bsss...

---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 03:03 PM ----------

Besides ... i know a photographer who photographs for the military museum (i think in vienna)(also with the D810)... he says, that he never uses the full resolution. Because the amount of data is too high... and nobody needs that resolution except if he does studio photography... (And if I am on a tripod i can have Pixelshift Res. pix...)
And if you are into professional studio photography you wont do it very long on 35mm. Sooner or later they all hop on the mid-format train... And most of them buy Pentaxes... because you can effort them... AND (i hear and read that very often) you can handle the 645Z nearly as good as you can handle a 35mm or a Crop-DSLR...
Because it is quick and you can change settings lighting fast. AND!!! the 645Z nearly behaves like a K-3 when it comes to AF and such. According to what i heard a real beast. I only tested it in a studio.... i cranked up the ISO to dunnowhere... ILL, very good performance... not magic (you wont find magic anywhere but on good old film) But really excellent.(And i think that was some kind of preproduction body...)

[Cynog Ap Brychan]

(And if I am on a tripod i can have Pixelshift Res. pix...)

Not if your subject is moving. All I'm really saying is that whatever one's needs, there is a camera system to satisfy it. Buy what you want, and be happy!

[tromboads]

Amen Brother!

I mean the Sky Is Falling!

[mee]

My request is simpler: just give us something better than a 3-D printed plastic mockup!

Yes, I too would be happy with any 'modern' digital FF body in K mount. I don't care if its 42MP with super fantastic AF or 16MP with current AF at this point.

[tromboads]

-16MP
-1 autofocus point in the center
-K-mount
-That fancy auto white balance from Ricoh.
-7fps


Done :P

[tgclark56]

And also.. if true.. then what makes a user want a 645Z system over this?

The answer is easy The Pentax 640Z is a MEDIUM Format camera = bigger sensor.

[batmobile]

I think this is misleading. There is not magical property to medium format and in the case of the 645z, the sensor is only slightly larger than FF, resulting in the requirement to use slightly longer focal lengths for equivalent framing (compared to FF). Because depth of field is almost entirely determined by focal length and aperture, you get slightly less depth of field for a given aperture when using the slightly longer focal length required by the 645Z for equivalent framing. i.e. a 60mm lens on FF instead of 50mm on FF (0.8x factor).

I think the point the person was making is that there are much faster lenses available for FF and they they more than compensate for the slightly greater focal length required for the same framing on the likes of the 645z. Sure the 150mm f2.8 for the pentax 645 is great for shallow depth of field, but the 55mm f2.8 does not come closer to the 50mm f1.2L for shallowness and there are other, similar examples as far as my memory serves me.

You have obviously never shot medium format. Subject isolation by shallow DOF is the hallmark of the format and easily attained at even f/5.6.


Steve

[Rondec]

I think this is highly incorrect and misleading. There is not magical property to medium format and in the case of the 645z, the sensor is only slightly larger than FF, resulting in the requirement to use slightly longer focal lengths for equivalent framing (compared to FF). Because depth of field is almost entirely determined by focal length and aperture, you get slightly less depth of field for a given aperture when using the slightly longer focal length required by the 645Z for equivalent framing. i.e. a 60mm lens on FF instead of 50mm on FF (0.8x factor).

I think the point the person was making is that there are much faster lenses available for FF and they they more than compensate for the slightly greater focal length required for the same framing on the likes of the 645z. Sure the 150mm f2.8 for the pentax 645 is great for shallow depth of field, but the 55mm f2.8 does not come closer to the 50mm f1.2L for shallowness and there are other, similar examples as far as my memory serves me.

I don't know that Steve is referring to digital medium format. The film size is larger than the sensor in the 645z/645D and it does allow for pretty shallow depth of field. But there is as much difference in sensor size between the digital medium format and full frame as there is between full frame and APS-C.

There is definitely something special though, about medium format in general. The transition from in focus to out of focus are smoother. You can see that the color depth is deeper and the dynamic range better in the photos. Equivalence will tell you that everything you shoot with medium format you could easily shoot with full frame, based on the wider lens selection available for full frame. But the end results from full frame, while good, aren't at the same level as the images produced on medium format.

[reh321]

I think this is highly incorrect and misleading. There is not magical property to medium format and in the case of the 645z, the sensor is only slightly larger than FF, resulting in the requirement to use slightly longer focal lengths for equivalent framing (compared to FF). Because depth of field is almost entirely determined by focal length and aperture, you get slightly less depth of field for a given aperture when using the slightly longer focal length required by the 645Z for equivalent framing. i.e. a 60mm lens on FF instead of 50mm on FF (0.8x factor).

I think the point the person was making is that there are much faster lenses available for FF and they they more than compensate for the slightly greater focal length required for the same framing on the likes of the 645z. Sure the 150mm f2.8 for the pentax 645 is great for shallow depth of field, but the 55mm f2.8 does not come closer to the 50mm f1.2L for shallowness and there are other, similar examples as far as my memory serves me.

I guess this depends entirely on your definition of "magical". The Pentax 645Z's diagonal is 26% longer than a full frame's diagonal. According to my rough calculations, that gives a camera with slightly more pixels than a Canon 5DS has but each pixel site is larger than those on a Nikon 810. Thus, by simple physics (not magic) it provides more detail than you can get from any current full frame camera while still more than providing the characteristics that people have always claimed for full frame based on physics. Again using physics, it should have the potential for getting even tighter DOF, depending on aperture.

[Edvinas]

A very high MP sensor would be the fastest way for me to not buy a FF

And your opinion is just as valid as mine.

I second you.

In past years I've used 16 megapixel (Pentax K-5), 12 megapixel (Nikon D700 and D3S) and 24 megapixel (Nikon D600) cameras and for my use (weddings and children photoshoots) optimal resolution is 16 megapixels. 12 megapixels are a little bit on the low side and 24 megapixels are way too much. I would not even look at camera with 42 megapixel sensor...

[batmobile]

I own a 645z and have owned and shot everything from M43 up to 8x10 over the years so I do recognise and enjoy the benefits of larger formats, but think we have to be careful not to ascribe qualities that are beyond the realm of what physics permits (as well as what can actually be seen in real life). I was responding to the notion that MF at f5.6 can achieve shallow DOF that has a quality we cannot see on smaller formats (with the suggestion that anyone having actually shot MF would recognise this). Unfortunately it isn't true and isn't close to being true. 80mm at f5.6 on a true 645 format will deliver vastly more depth of field than f1.4 on FF using a 50mm lens, for example (at a given distance). The 645 and 80mm combo cannot overcome the reduced depth of field possible by the much wider aperture of the 50mm lens, which gives the same angle of view on FF. Sure, shoot the 80mm at f2.8 and the 50mm at f2.8 and the larger format will show less DOF.... but if you seek shallow DOF, clearly you would open the 50mm lens up (whereas many 80mm MF lenses are/were f2.8 wide open).

So, while I agree about the fact that 33x44 has the potential to offer shallower depth of field than FF, in practice this is often not the case due to the speed of lenses available (and in the case of the Pentax, options are somewhat limited). Apart from a few specific examples, there is a greater availability of lenses for FF that will offer shallower DOF across a range of focal lengths, especially in the wider focal lengths. A great example would be 90mm on the 645z. Your only native option is the 90mm f2.8 DFA Macro, whereas with full frame, you are looking at 75mm for the same framing. Here, you may have the option of a Summilux 75mm f1.4 which will offer shallower DOF (as would a 75mm f1.8 CV). If you're not shooting Leica M, you could go a touch longer in real terms and grab the Canon 85mm f1.2L (or Nikkor 85mm f1.4), which will offer far shallower DOF and this is simply because big lenses on FF become even bigger on larger formats as the focal length goes up to maintain the same angle of view, meaning the physical aperture is larger etc. In order to produce less depth of field than the Canon 85mm f1.2, Pentax would have to offer a 105mm lens (for same angle of view) significantly faster than f1.8 (I am not sure of the precise maths). But they don't (thought there is a Hassy 100mm f2 and similar). FF usually wins the extreme DOF race (just as they do when you try to figure out what would be needed from MF to produce less DOF than a FF 600mm f4 lens...), but there are other qualities that are strong selling points for the larger formats.

With 'true' 645, achieving shallower DOF than FF is still difficult. 150mm Pentax f2.8 vs (there is no precise angle of view equivalent) 85mm f1.2 L II or 135mm f2 L. The Pentax still does not win the DOF race. It gets much more interesting when you put a 300mm f4.5 on 10x8!

Tonal transition, colour, resolution, lens quality and bokeh are all different issues and even 33x44 (a smaller leap from FF than FF is from APS-C) does offer very real tangible benefits, but depth of field is unrelated to these.

I guess this depends entirely on your definition of "magical". The Pentax 645Z's diagonal is 26% longer than a full frame's diagonal. According to my rough calculations, that gives a camera with slightly more pixels than a Canon 5DS has but each pixel site is larger than those on a Nikon 810. Thus, by simple physics (not magic) it provides more detail than you can get from any current full frame camera while still more than providing the characteristics that people have always claimed for full frame based on physics. Again using physics, it should have the potential for getting even tighter DOF, depending on aperture.