Pentax K-1 Officially Announced

D1N0 · 03-04-2016, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by gazonk

They need to move to FF 645 ASAP

There now is a 100mp 645 FF cmos sensor(co-developed with Sony) in the phase one XF 100MP which costs $50000,- (a lens included

). Pentax will do that once these sensors can be put in a sub $10000 system.

Simen1 · 03-04-2016, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by rawr

But bad news for 645Z sales.

Originally posted by gazonk

They need to move to FF 645 ASAP

My though too. And let the 645Z sensor pass on to the K-1 replacement, for those occasions the image circle is larger then FF. That actually happens quite often. The image circle varies with focal length, aperture and focus distance and its always the worst case combination of those factors that defines the lenses official max image circle. So if I can have a camera that in worst case only give me good FF images, and in other cases a varying degree of medium format, with K mount lenses, I would be very happy.

Originally posted by D1N0

There now is a 100mp 645 FF cmos sensor(co-developed with Sony) in the phase one XF 100MP which costs $50000,- (a lens included

). Pentax will do that once these sensors can be put in a sub $10000 system.

The $40000 Phase one camera with the same sensor as 645Z show us that its not the sensor cost that dominates their prices. Using relative pricing as an indicator I think a full frame replacement for 645Z or addition to 645Z would add somewhere between $2000 and $6000.

Zygonyx · 03-04-2016, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by clackers

Aren't they limited to just 1/1600s or so? And limited in how wide their aperture can be?

Yes, but we wouldn't need many of these.
At least one for portraits.
Same with Tilt shift : something like 30 mm f/4.5 would be fine...

**clackers** · 03-04-2016, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Zygonyx

Yes, but we wouldn't need many of these.
At least one for portraits.
Same with Tilt shift : something like 30 mm f/4.5 would be fine...

Yes, I agree with you now, what can offering a couple of specialty lenses for a premium product hurt?

derekkite · 03-04-2016, 07:54 AM - **1 Like**

Why is this bad for the 645Z? There have been full frame alternatives to the medium format for a while now, and the reasons to use the 645Z are still there. Nothing has changed except now there is a Pentax full frame available instead of having to go to Nikon or Sony.

What he is saying is that a Pentax shooter has a viable alternative to the 645Z for high IQ shooting.

The 645Z at $8k with $5k lenses is a pretty narrow niche. Someone in that market isn't looking to save a bit of money. Except in the comparison to the other MF stuff which is $20K+.

Does BMW lose sales of it's high end cars when they make their less expensive ones really nice? I suspect it is the opposite. The infrastructure to support the K1 geared to professionals will increase the 645Z value proposition, not decrease it.

D1N0 · 03-04-2016, 07:59 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by derekkite

Why is this bad for the 645Z?

It isn't really but it gives us something to argue about.

**disasterfilm** · 03-04-2016, 11:55 AM

Can we argue about shipping?

Who all pre-ordered and had the patience to select free shipping, ie wait 4-7 days, versus same day/overnight/2nd day options? Will it be a race for the 1st unboxing video?

D1N0 · 03-04-2016, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by disasterfilm

Can we argue about shipping?

Who all pre-ordered and had the patience to select free shipping, ie wait 4-7 days, versus same day/overnight/2nd day options? Will it be a race for the 1st unboxing video?

Just camp out in front of BHPhoto and be the first to get one en do the unboxing video right then and there.

Simen1 · 03-04-2016, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by derekkite

Why is this bad for the 645Z? There have been full frame alternatives to the medium format for a while now, and the reasons to use the 645Z are still there.

I struggle to see those reasons. Can you please fill me in on that?

Mistral75 · 03-05-2016, 01:07 AM

Originally posted by clackers

Aren't they limited to just 1/1600s or so? And limited in how wide their aperture can be?

Yes for the maximum shutter speed but it can be overcome by having in-lens leaf shutter together with in-camera focal-plane shutter (e.g.: Phase One, Hasselblad 2000 series).

No for the aperture wideness; I presume you are confusing with the maximum shutter speed being linked to the aperture chosen (the wider the aperture, the lower the maximum shutter speed).

**clackers** · 03-05-2016, 02:12 AM

Thanks for explaining, Mistral!

Nicolas06 · 03-05-2016, 02:26 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Simen1

I struggle to see those reasons. Can you please fill me in on that?

The same reason to get an FF instead of APSC, APSC over m4/3, m4/3 over 1", 1" over 1/1.7" and so on. As good or as bad.

**Rondec** · 03-05-2016, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Simen1

I struggle to see those reasons. Can you please fill me in on that?

I think the two reasons that I can see are for better resolution and for better high iso. Well, and better dynamic range at a given iso (the D810 has the same base dynamic range as the 645Z, but it needs to use iso 50 to get there).

For pure landscape photographers or studio photographers who have the money, the 645Z will still give better results -- albeit at a high cost.

Simen1 · 03-05-2016, 05:15 AM

For studio photographers then yes resolution is better with the 645 series. 40 or 51 Mp vs 36 Mp, and the 645 got sharper lenses, resulting in sharper images. Not by a huge amount but I'm sure it will be notable. Its a huge price premium for a relatively little gain in resolution.

For landscape photographers its a bit more tricky. In situations where pixel shift resolution is useful the K-1 probably produces comparable detail level to the 645Z. In other situations its still a (small) advantage for both digital 645 models.

For ISO and DR I'm not sure the 645D actually are less noisy and have higher DR then K-1. I guess 645Z have a small advantage on DR and a larger advantage on ISO. But the 645Z is generally limited to f/2,8 primes and f/4 zooms (or around those apertures). The K-1 might be fitted with 1-2 stops larger apertures and remove the noise advantage completely.

The K-1 would also be lighter to carry to the best landscape sites, and the photographer will be less dependent on a tripod both because of weight/size and SR.

All in all, I still struggle to see that the 645 system offers any significant advantages over K-1. Slightly better resolution in some cases yes, but I think few will rationally think that alone is worth the price difference and disadvantages following the change (losing SR, availability of faster lenses and so on)

D1N0 · 03-05-2016, 05:28 AM

The 645z doesn't need pixelshift for it's sharpness. And a bigger sensor means you can shoot at another perspective. It gives you a more intimate shot like you are not viewing from a distance but are present in the shot. 50mm becomes wide angle. Which is why ricoh should make a 44*33 GR.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	1014	07-03-2015 10:55 PM
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax K-S1 & K-S2	12	05-23-2015 06:49 AM
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced!	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	245	09-12-2012 08:32 PM
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	533	03-06-2012 05:45 AM
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced	Ole	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	50	01-20-2011 10:05 PM

03-04-2016, 04:06 AM	#721
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by gazonk They need to move to FF 645 ASAP There now is a 100mp 645 FF cmos sensor(co-developed with Sony) in the phase one XF 100MP which costs $50000,- (a lens included ). Pentax will do that once these sensors can be put in a sub $10000 system.

03-04-2016, 04:22 AM	#722
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by rawr But bad news for 645Z sales. Originally posted by gazonk They need to move to FF 645 ASAP My though too. And let the 645Z sensor pass on to the K-1 replacement, for those occasions the image circle is larger then FF. That actually happens quite often. The image circle varies with focal length, aperture and focus distance and its always the worst case combination of those factors that defines the lenses official max image circle. So if I can have a camera that in worst case only give me good FF images, and in other cases a varying degree of medium format, with K mount lenses, I would be very happy. Originally posted by D1N0 There now is a 100mp 645 FF cmos sensor(co-developed with Sony) in the phase one XF 100MP which costs $50000,- (a lens included ). Pentax will do that once these sensors can be put in a sub $10000 system. The $40000 Phase one camera with the same sensor as 645Z show us that its not the sensor cost that dominates their prices. Using relative pricing as an indicator I think a full frame replacement for 645Z or addition to 645Z would add somewhere between $2000 and $6000.

03-04-2016, 05:07 AM	#723
Zygonyx Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Ile de France Posts: 4,033	Originally posted by clackers Aren't they limited to just 1/1600s or so? And limited in how wide their aperture can be? Yes, but we wouldn't need many of these. At least one for portraits. Same with Tilt shift : something like 30 mm f/4.5 would be fine...

03-04-2016, 05:20 AM	#724
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by Zygonyx Yes, but we wouldn't need many of these. At least one for portraits. Same with Tilt shift : something like 30 mm f/4.5 would be fine... Yes, I agree with you now, what can offering a couple of specialty lenses for a premium product hurt?

03-04-2016, 07:54 AM - 1 Like	#725
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Why is this bad for the 645Z? There have been full frame alternatives to the medium format for a while now, and the reasons to use the 645Z are still there. Nothing has changed except now there is a Pentax full frame available instead of having to go to Nikon or Sony. What he is saying is that a Pentax shooter has a viable alternative to the 645Z for high IQ shooting. The 645Z at $8k with $5k lenses is a pretty narrow niche. Someone in that market isn't looking to save a bit of money. Except in the comparison to the other MF stuff which is $20K+. Does BMW lose sales of it's high end cars when they make their less expensive ones really nice? I suspect it is the opposite. The infrastructure to support the K1 geared to professionals will increase the 645Z value proposition, not decrease it.

03-04-2016, 07:59 AM - 1 Like	#726
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by derekkite Why is this bad for the 645Z? It isn't really but it gives us something to argue about.

03-04-2016, 11:55 AM	#727
disasterfilm Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Texas Posts: 406	Can we argue about shipping? Who all pre-ordered and had the patience to select free shipping, ie wait 4-7 days, versus same day/overnight/2nd day options? Will it be a race for the 1st unboxing video?

03-04-2016, 12:03 PM	#728
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by disasterfilm Can we argue about shipping? Who all pre-ordered and had the patience to select free shipping, ie wait 4-7 days, versus same day/overnight/2nd day options? Will it be a race for the 1st unboxing video? Just camp out in front of BHPhoto and be the first to get one en do the unboxing video right then and there.

03-04-2016, 03:52 PM	#729
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	Originally posted by derekkite Why is this bad for the 645Z? There have been full frame alternatives to the medium format for a while now, and the reasons to use the 645Z are still there. I struggle to see those reasons. Can you please fill me in on that?

03-05-2016, 01:07 AM	#730
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,527	Originally posted by clackers Aren't they limited to just 1/1600s or so? And limited in how wide their aperture can be? Yes for the maximum shutter speed but it can be overcome by having in-lens leaf shutter together with in-camera focal-plane shutter (e.g.: Phase One, Hasselblad 2000 series). No for the aperture wideness; I presume you are confusing with the maximum shutter speed being linked to the aperture chosen (the wider the aperture, the lower the maximum shutter speed).

03-05-2016, 02:12 AM	#731
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Thanks for explaining, Mistral!

03-05-2016, 02:26 AM - 1 Like	#732
Nicolas06 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 4,854	Originally posted by Simen1 I struggle to see those reasons. Can you please fill me in on that? The same reason to get an FF instead of APSC, APSC over m4/3, m4/3 over 1", 1" over 1/1.7" and so on. As good or as bad.

03-05-2016, 04:02 AM	#733
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,653	Originally posted by Simen1 I struggle to see those reasons. Can you please fill me in on that? I think the two reasons that I can see are for better resolution and for better high iso. Well, and better dynamic range at a given iso (the D810 has the same base dynamic range as the 645Z, but it needs to use iso 50 to get there). For pure landscape photographers or studio photographers who have the money, the 645Z will still give better results -- albeit at a high cost.

03-05-2016, 05:15 AM	#734
Simen1 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Tromsø, Norway Photos: Albums Posts: 1,031	For studio photographers then yes resolution is better with the 645 series. 40 or 51 Mp vs 36 Mp, and the 645 got sharper lenses, resulting in sharper images. Not by a huge amount but I'm sure it will be notable. Its a huge price premium for a relatively little gain in resolution. For landscape photographers its a bit more tricky. In situations where pixel shift resolution is useful the K-1 probably produces comparable detail level to the 645Z. In other situations its still a (small) advantage for both digital 645 models. For ISO and DR I'm not sure the 645D actually are less noisy and have higher DR then K-1. I guess 645Z have a small advantage on DR and a larger advantage on ISO. But the 645Z is generally limited to f/2,8 primes and f/4 zooms (or around those apertures). The K-1 might be fitted with 1-2 stops larger apertures and remove the noise advantage completely. The K-1 would also be lighter to carry to the best landscape sites, and the photographer will be less dependent on a tripod both because of weight/size and SR. All in all, I still struggle to see that the 645 system offers any significant advantages over K-1. Slightly better resolution in some cases yes, but I think few will rationally think that alone is worth the price difference and disadvantages following the change (losing SR, availability of faster lenses and so on)

03-05-2016, 05:28 AM	#735
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	The 645z doesn't need pixelshift for it's sharpness. And a bigger sensor means you can shoot at another perspective. It gives you a more intimate shot like you are not viewing from a distance but are present in the shot. 50mm becomes wide angle. Which is why ricoh should make a 44*33 GR.