Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-25-2008, 06:58 AM   #16
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Jasvox Quote
I think at the end of the day, most Pentaxians just want to, for some reason be able to say there is a kick-ass Pentax MF on the market, maybe for bragging purposes, or maybe for some sort of security reasons. Jason
Pentax says they will not make the 645D (or an FF camera for that matter) for prestige reason. The aim of the 645D is to make it reachable for the amateur as well; ie the same people who bought their MF film cameras. The real issue is indeed the price but I have no doubts that it will be significantly cheaper than anything from Hassleblad.....

10-25-2008, 09:02 AM   #17
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
No, of course.

QuoteOriginally posted by froeschle Quote
Hello,

I am a "Pentaxian" possessing a lot of 135-FF-lenses. However, I (as an amateur photographer) have never been attracted to the 645-system. Thus, a 645D does not meet my needs or demands. Due to the price tag and similar considerations, which apply to the APS-C vs. 135-FF debate, I probably never would buy a MF-camera. However, Pentax seems to favor MF over 135. My question therefore is: Do you consider to buy a MF over a 135-FF? Please do not be too emotional, I just want to find out, whether the strategy of Pentax is reasonable...

Best regards,
froeschle
MF gear have never been made for amateur photographers, they are intended for studio use or for landscape shootings which meet the professional or simply commercial requirements.

135 FF is the way to go for the best compromise in IQ, system size, mobility and backward compatibility with old film lenses, nothing is arguable here for all of these.

Of course, the Pentax strategy was proven to be wrong in the film old days for the film 645 (when they should make a pro-grade 135 body when they still had the huge money earned from the P&S market). Now, they have no money but still go for a cropped 645 digital, this would be even more wrong as such an almost non-existent market will very probably just a dead-end for them and will never pay back for the huge investment they put into. Even worse, their K-mount small sensor DSLR lineup could just die together without the existence of a true upper class body nor a soon-to-be (or even just now) true advanced amateur mainstream DSLR system - the 135 Full Frame.

IMO, Pentax (and now Hoya) are just trying to commit suicide from time to time!
10-25-2008, 09:26 AM   #18
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
its not surprising that you don't actually properly answer the question asked ricehigh. and then use your response as a means to show how you think Pentax is failing because it doesn't meet your needs.... you never pass up an opportunity to down pentax do you ricehigh?
10-25-2008, 09:42 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
See also this

Do we really want a 645D if this is true? [Page 1]: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

QuoteOriginally posted by froeschle Quote
Hello,

I am a "Pentaxian" possessing a lot of 135-FF-lenses. However, I (as an amateur photographer) have never been attracted to the 645-system. Thus, a 645D does not meet my needs or demands. Due to the price tag and similar considerations, which apply to the APS-C vs. 135-FF debate, I probably never would buy a MF-camera. However, Pentax seems to favor MF over 135. My question therefore is: Do you consider to buy a MF over a 135-FF? Please do not be too emotional, I just want to find out, whether the strategy of Pentax is reasonable...

Best regards,
froeschle


10-25-2008, 09:44 AM   #20
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
Who has actually gone OFF TOPIC??

QuoteOriginally posted by séamuis Quote
its not surprising that you don't actually properly answer the question asked ricehigh. and then use your response as a means to show how you think Pentax is failing because it doesn't meet your needs.... you never pass up an opportunity to down pentax do you ricehigh?
Me? Nope. It's YOU! Go away if you are not intended to give a sensible response to what the OP asked!
10-25-2008, 09:55 AM   #21
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
MF gear have never been made for amateur photographers, they are intended for studio use or for landscape shootings which meet the professional or simply commercial requirements.!

Too simplistic in my view. Even Hasselblad sold 80% of their (film) cameras to amateurs. The only cameras dominated by pros, before MF digital that is, are passport cameras!
10-25-2008, 09:57 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
Of course, the Pentax strategy was proven to be wrong in the film old days for the film 645 (when they should make a pro-grade 135 body when they still had the huge money earned from the P&S market). !


Actually, Pentax MF line was hugely sucessful and they had 50% of the japanese market; the worlds largest MF market. This is possibly the reason they consider a 645D.....
10-25-2008, 09:59 AM   #23
Banned




Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Savannah, U.S./Baguio City, P.H.
Posts: 5,979
QuoteQuote:
Me? Nope. It's YOU! Go away if you are not intended to give a sensible response to what the OP asked!
that made no sense.

10-25-2008, 10:43 AM   #24
Veteran Member
KungPOW's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,702
I have no interest at all in a MF camera. Pentax or otherwise. It is just too large, and I expect it will be too expensive.

On the other hand, there is a very god chance my next camera body will be a FF.

Even if I need to jump ship to the dark side of the Canikon camp. In the next year or so, prices will come down, and I will be ready to upgrade just as either the D700, or 5Dmkii are nearing the end of their product life cycle. And to me, that is the time to buy.

I just found out about the Mamiya 645ZD system. Not that I know anything about MF cameras, but it sounded interesting. It also might be a good example of what to expect if Pentax ever does release the 645D for sale. It is a good "marker" for the price point and feature set that could be expected. Here is the article I read:

Hands-on With Mamiya's 645ZD Digital Back

It sounds like a great camera for the price, but it is not the tool that I need or want.
10-25-2008, 12:04 PM   #25
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,212
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote

Of course, the Pentax strategy was proven to be wrong in the film old days for the film 645 (when they should make a pro-grade 135 body when they still had the huge money earned from the P&S market).
Facts, facts, facts!!!

I am old enough to remember when the 645 was released (1984) . There was no need to direct funding towards a professional grade 35mm SLR in 1984 because they were already making the legendary LX system camera and the MX as the next step down. At that time Pentax was not a significant player in the P&S market. In fact, the P&S market as we know it today was virtually non-existent and just getting started. (P&S = auto-focus, auto-exposure, motor-driven, compact consumer camera.) Got it straight?

At the time the 645 was extremely well-received by reviewers and by the target market. That market being the advanced amateur and non-sports/wildlife professionals. (BTW, there are quite a few of us that shoot portraits, landscapes, flowers and such who appreciate the benefits of a MF or LF camera and would buy such if we had the money. I personally would love a lighter-weight 4x5 view camera.)

Strangely that market still exists.

Steve
10-25-2008, 12:10 PM   #26
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,212
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Too simplistic in my view. Even Hasselblad sold 80% of their (film) cameras to amateurs. The only cameras dominated by pros, before MF digital that is, are passport cameras!
Ha! Ha! So true! Most Hasselblad I have seen in the field were being carried by well-heeled amateurs. Ditto for large format except that those guys are/were just plain fanatics and not necessarily rich!

At current, the only reason most amateurs don't shot MF digital is the price of the digital backs and supporting hardware. You pretty much have to make that sort of stuff pay for itself.

Steve
10-25-2008, 02:27 PM   #27
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Shallow DOF is a read herring. One in a million published images have very thin DOF and most of those would be better without it. The main problem with MF, and particularly landscape photographers, is too little DOF.
That's too general a statement. Sports photos are almost always shallow DOF and it is the single largest photo market. Fashion photography is also big on shallow DOF for obvious reasons. These are valuable, high profile, high margin markets.
10-25-2008, 02:34 PM   #28
Pentaxian
Pål Jensen's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,064
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
That's too general a statement. Sports photos are almost always shallow DOF and it is the single largest photo market. Fashion photography is also big on shallow DOF for obvious reasons. These are valuable, high profile, high margin markets.

But this sort of DOF can be produced with any camera. The best for this is a FF camera with its fast lenses. Hardly anyone use MF for sports anyway.
10-26-2008, 01:09 AM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Madison WI U.S.A.
Posts: 60
QuoteOriginally posted by Pål Jensen Quote
Shallow DOF is a read herring. One in a million published images have very thin DOF and most of those would be better without it. The main problem with MF, and particularly landscape photographers, is too little DOF. Many type of images i impossible to shoot with MF because you cannot get the whole subject in focus. I rarely shoot wider than F:16 on my MF camera for a reason. The main reason for large formats "popularity" is that it gives you more DOF than MF due to the tilting function.
That I agree with. I remember all to well my time with MF routinely shooting at F/22 or even F/32. I have trouble at times getting the DOF I want with APS-C format without running into diffraction. The problem is exasperated by high pixel counts. I'm voting for (besides Obama) a few tilt/shift lenses from Pentax.
10-26-2008, 01:30 AM   #30
Site Supporter
Rorschach's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kuusamo, Finland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 598
I am definitely interested in a digital MF, much more so than in a full format digital. Price has to be right, however, because I'm a hobbyist. A bare bones digital MF with weather sealing would be IDEAL. No frills, bells and whistles for me please. And, please, give us a tilt/shift lens too!

Regards,
Boucicaut
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
mf, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:19 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top