[Mistral75]

My views on a 'Full 645' Pentax digital camera:

- 'Full 645' digital sensors (40.4mm x 53.7mm actually, a bit smaller than film 645 format = 41.5mm x 56mm) are expensive and so are the corresponding digital backs (Hasselblad H6D-100c and Phase One IQ1 100MP: $33,000)
- even if Ricoh Imaging were able to propose a substantially cheaper Pentax 'Full 645', say around $20,000, would there be a market for it?

Let's face it: the lens offer is not attractive in comparison to what Hasselblad or Phase One (Schneider) propose. 12 FA 645 lenses and 1 D FA 645 lens (the 35mm) are what, 20 or 25-year old? Only two lenses are more recent: the 90mm macro, launched 5 years ago, and the 55mm, launched 7 and a half years ago.

Having to use lenses among which most were designed during the film era is acceptable when you can buy a 645Z for $5,500: it's a cheap entry ticket into medium format territory. I'm not convinced people needing/asking for a 100MP, soon 150MP 'full 645' sensor and requested to put $20,000 on the table to buy it (or to pay the corresponding rental fee) would accept it as easily.

[Kunzite]

Thibs, the issue I have is with the strong language used; otherwise I'm open to discussion, and to hearing other's opinions. It's saying that something is "stupid" that closes the door to discussion.

Indeed a "full frame" 645 makes sense, to offer a clear differentiation from the small format. But that's not the only factor; I have similar concerns with Mistral. Less about the lens line, but mostly about the total cost of entering that market, and the existence of said market.
Perhaps the "cropped" 645 is a sweet spot.

And even if eventually a "full frame" 645 would make sense, let me put it this way: was it stupid for Pentax to make the DA Limiteds?

[ogl]

And even if eventually a "full frame" 645 would make sense, let me put it this way: was it stupid for Pentax to make the DA Limiteds?

I think it's rather strange categories for serious business - stupid or not stupid...
The commercial decision could be profitable or advantageous to produce, or non-profitable...

[Kunzite]

Ogl, please pay attention - I'm not the one thinking in such a manner, Zygonyx is.

[ogl]

Ogl, please pay attention - I'm not the one thinking in such a manner, Zygonyx is.

Need to read I think

[sculptor666]

am i wrong in thinking that high $$ commercial customers require high $$ cameras... not because a cheaper camera is less capable, but because customers need to see that you're using the most expensive equipment?

[Zygonyx]

I don't agree with the 645 FF sensor price tag hereabove. Remember the price gap with traditional MF SLR/backs when Hoya did issue the 645D in 2010 (btw, that i did buy straight away)..

I am sure the marginal production cost for 645 DFA lenses is something to be related with the very slight volume hitch, as from DA versions. So there is nothing comparable btw DA limited in K mount and DA 645, as compared with FF versions. Look at the bulky DA28-45mm, using best available techs, it would have been possible to build it DFA with almost invisible volume increase.

Finally, taking into account the sluggish new lens formula production pace with RI, i can't imagine they carry on with such nonsense MF DA designs. Or the result will be ridiculous sales within a few years, and consequent liquidation of the 645 product line.
Indeed, competition is now aggressive.


---------- Post added 19-10-17 at 12:28 ----------

am i wrong in thinking that high $$ commercial customers require high $$ cameras... not because a cheaper camera is less capable, but because customers need to see that you're using the most expensive equipment?

I get that argument.
But most of all, absolute enthusiast and professionnals value the investment price tag when the quality markup follows...

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 10-19-2017 at 12:36 PM.

[2351HD]

I think that Pentax are in a unique position to be able to service the market from both angles, in that they could produce a 645Z II with a new 100mp sensor and optical viewfinder, plus also release concurrently a 645Z II M which has the mirror box and OVF removed and has a massive EVF and full time live view.

Imagine that!

[Zygonyx]

I'd buy that.
Hopefully this "new lenses retention period" we are witnessing, could be the preparation of a new MF product line, adaptor included.

[Zygonyx]

I agree, but the more time flies....

[BarneyL]

For quite a few years, Pentax was the only cheap option in digital medium format. After GFX and H1D arrived, its appeal has greatly diminished, mostly because most of the glass available dates back to film era (and still no UWA after ditching 25mm). With current rate of releasing new 645 glass I cannot see them competing with Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the long run, not to mention foraying into full format 645.

[TDvN57]

For quite a few years, Pentax was the only cheap option in digital medium format. After GFX and H1D arrived, its appeal has greatly diminished, mostly because most of the glass available dates back to film era (and still no UWA after ditching 25mm). With current rate of releasing new 645 glass I cannot see them competing with Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the long run, not to mention foraying into full format 645.

I find the existing availability of lenses quite adequate. Like most MF photographers I've come across, I also collect a lot of glass, but when going on a trip I go through an emotional stress time to select my three or four lenses for the trip.

Most of my glass are from the film era, and I am very happy with the IQ. MF do not need a store room full of lenses.

Offering a wide range of lenses is a sales gimmick. You only need a set of high quality glass that covers the range of focal length you are going to shoot. And you don't need to cover every possible focal length either. For example I have a 25mm prime, 80-160 zoom, 150-300 zoom, and 600mm prime. If I think I may have time for macro I'll pack my 120mm macro, otherwise it stays at home. Don't need to cover the focal length gaps in between. I have often taken additional lenses for the in between focal lengths and found that I never unpacked them. My 28-45mm zoom hasn't been out of the drybox since Dec 2016.

Another gimmick is aperture as far as MF is concerned. For focal lengths over 50mm anything faster than 4.5 or 5.6 becomes unusable, because the depth of field is so shallow it is almost useless. I had a 150mm f2.8 and probably the best lens I ever had. Many times I got caught with a fantastic portrait shot, with the person's nose tip in focus, but the eyes out of focus. Eventually I sold it for that reason. Now I use the 80-160mm zoom instead.

[willeisner]

would be happy on the map of new 645 lenses a new normal or tele lens, with wide aperture an 80mm f2 or a 100mm f2 could be D-FA * covering the full 645 image circle.

[Zygonyx]

For quite a few years, Pentax was the only cheap option in digital medium format. After GFX and H1D arrived, its appeal has greatly diminished, mostly because most of the glass available dates back to film era (and still no UWA after ditching 25mm). With current rate of releasing new 645 glass I cannot see them competing with Hasselblad and Fujifilm in the long run, not to mention foraying into full format 645.

I fully agree... unless something up to such a stake has been prepared secretly since mid-2014.