[ThorSanchez]

Well. Ricoh could have a reason for not investing in 645z. With a Pentax K1 , good glass and pixel shift (or SR, depending on cases) is still smaller and cheaper than a 645z kit, and in many cases deliver images as good or better.

The Fuji GFX 100S is about the same size as the K-1, half the size of the 645Z, and it's 100 MP medium format, with IBIS and mult-shot 400MP mode. Of course it's a tad bit more expensive... But I think the Fuji MF system is the primary reason the 645 has been on hiatus. You can get the Fuji + Lens that's smaller and lighter than the 645Z by itself.

[Pål Jensen]

The Fuji GFX 100S is about the same size as the K-1, half the size of the 645Z, and it's 100 MP medium format, with IBIS and mult-shot 400MP mode. Of course it's a tad bit more expensive... But I think the Fuji MF system is the primary reason the 645 has been on hiatus. You can get the Fuji + Lens that's smaller and lighter than the 645Z by itself.

Pentax kept the form factor when they released their 645 cameras, possibly to please the 645 film system users. However, the Pentax 645 line do not need to be significantly larger than a K-1. About 1.5cm longer mount to sensor distance than for the K-mount. A significantly more compact design is possible.
However, I seriously doubt a new 645 was planned for this year anyway.

[repaap]

Well. Ricoh could have a reason for not investing in 645z. With a Pentax K1 , good glass and pixel shift (or SR, depending on cases) is still smaller and cheaper than a 645z kit, and in many cases deliver images as good or better.

Anyone can see that GFX100s is quite aggressive move towards FF cameras. What I would not presume anymore is that Pentax/ricoh think this is good that Fuji is drawing attention more to the 645 line. It is. Something is not right at here. Or would it be that MILC is actually much more cheap to make? What will remain to ve a big question is that wherewill things go next. 6 K is still a lot and 2-3K/lens too. But where will things end. All in all interesting stuff. Weill put MILC prices in perspective all in all.

[reh321]

Well. Ricoh could have a reason for not investing in 645z. With a Pentax K1 , good glass and pixel shift (or SR, depending on cases) is still smaller and cheaper than a 645z kit, and in many cases deliver images as good or better.

Concentrating on K-mount cameras also allows Pentax to focus on K-mount lenses.

---

Last edited by reh321; 03-05-2021 at 03:53 PM.

[BarneyL]

I think the translation machine can not express my meaning very well.The new full frame sensor will have to wait half a year.
When I used Ricoh to get the news of the new sensor and asked if the full frame camera had started, the answer was No, still no project about it.
Now, Ricoh now has sensors cover APSC, full frame(after half a year), 44x33, but still no information can show us what is next camera.It can be confirmed that the full frame camera project has not started yet.
So, that's all I know. My guess is K-90, but it could also be K-1III. And the status may soon be changed in just a few weeks. It's like new 645 camera was suddenly suspended.

---------- Post added 03-05-21 at 07:12 AM ----------



DA*16-50plm already on the way.DFA21 have some minor problems, but I can not get more details about "problems", although I repeated inquiries.The confidentiality of dfa21 is much higher than I expected.
The information about dfa21 comes from photographers close to Ricoh.

Thank you for all your insights, lemono. Much appreciated 😊

[texandrews]

Of course it's a tad bit more expensive...

That's an understatement! Because you have no choice but to purchase all your Fuji lenses new. With Pentax you can dip into the rich used market. This may have hurt them more than they anticipated...

[Zygonyx]

Also, the Fuji GFX product-line is based on the 44x33mm "cropped" sensor.

Pentax's only qualitative and somehow "competitive" - with heavy cost management - solution, consists in using "full-frame" 645 digital sensor.
But this would also imply quite a few new lens designs, targetting a narrower market...

[thibs]

Or the product lines get consolidated into one entry-level camera (KP-level construction, K-70 features and body?).

Indeed. IMO, it will be more towards KP than K70 but I might be wrong.

[thibs]

Well. Ricoh could have a reason for not investing in 645z. With a Pentax K1 , good glass and pixel shift (or SR, depending on cases) is still smaller and cheaper than a 645z kit, and in many cases deliver images as good or better.

As long as the inventory of 645 glass is sufficient, a camera is worth it. Maybe not a new one though.

[thibs]

Ricoh/Pentax has shown real reluctance to talk about the '645Z' for the past few years, so they may be very ambivalent about continuing it - especially now that the K-1ii has "dynamic pixel shift".

They probably consider/considered going mirror less which, for 645 would be relevant.
But then a Pentax being mirrorless is a marketing problem, being in contradiction with what they otherwise say.

[thibs]

Also, the Fuji GFX product-line is based on the 44x33mm "cropped" sensor.

Pentax's only qualitative and somehow "competitive" - with heavy cost management - solution, consists in using "full-frame" 645 digital sensor.
But this would also imply quite a few new lens designs, targetting a narrower market...

Or go ML all the way. More risky, much heavier on R&D and investment but potentially much more prone to get market traction.

I dunno what I'd do either.
IMO they put everything on hold till they know what to do.

[repaap]

I could imagine that they could come back to 645 line, but install a SR unit there, which is propably not easy in old form. Going mirrorless would be quite a big thing. And go against line they have chosen.

[Pål Jensen]

Also, the Fuji GFX product-line is based on the 44x33mm "cropped" sensor.

Pentax's only qualitative and somehow "competitive" - with heavy cost management - solution, consists in using "full-frame" 645 digital sensor.
But this would also imply quite a few new lens designs, targetting a narrower market...

And this is what they should do. Especially if the have a 61mp FF camera in the works.....
BTW I think one of Pentax MF advantages is a spectacular optical viewfinder.
I suggest they forgo the current 645 box design (yes, it is very practical with two tripod sockets) and go for a typical DSLR form factor. It will be like fat K-1.

---------- Post added 03-06-21 at 11:26 AM ----------

Or go ML all the way. More risky, much heavier on R&D and investment but potentially much more prone to get market traction.

I dunno what I'd do either.
IMO they put everything on hold till they know what to do.

I doubt that mirrorless will give them more sales traction. A FF 645 DSLR will set them apart from anything on the market. A big optical viewfinder will be appreciated by lots of MF users. By going FF 645 they won't have to put out a new line of cropped lenses; they can replace the current ones one by one. Some of the current lenses are very good and can justify a better sensor. FF 645 lenses shouldn't be significantly more expensive to develop and manufacture than cropped lenses; it is not the glass that make them expensive but their low production volumes. In addition the current lenses + the lens pool out there will function they way they are designed without crop factor on an FF 645 system. One the strengths of the Pentax MF system is that lots of lenses (they must have sold well) can be had at ridiculous low prices second hand potentially making the system very competitive.

[texandrews]

Also, the Fuji GFX product-line is based on the 44x33mm "cropped" sensor.

Pentax's only qualitative and somehow "competitive" - with heavy cost management - solution, consists in using "full-frame" 645 digital sensor.

That's how I see it. Fuji has made some interesting decisions---sticking with apsc, not engaging with FF and skipping to medium format; designing those lenses for a crop sensor.

But this would also imply quite a few new lens designs, targetting a narrower market...

Maybe on both counts. It looks like digital medium format sub $10K has been a better market than both Pentax and Fuji anticipated, so I'm not sure about the narrow part. As to the lenses, we have no testing beyond user tests, so we actually don't know how the existing ones would perform. I'll stick my neck out and say that at least half of them would perform just fine or quite well. And if a FF medium format body had a crop mode---as the K1 series does--then I'd say no problems, best of both. And that would allow for some timed refreshes that we'd be forced to buy if we wanted the best. I feel more than a bit guilty in terms of supporting Pentax that nearly all of my lenses were ones I had or bought used, although I had little choice, really.

I think Pentax made a couple of errors on the support side for medium format: general lack of support and especially pro support; not doing more with firmware and software (tethering); not running at least a C&C repair branch to recondition older lenses---up to the point of new coatings. These would have been good things to do to keep owners "close to the fold", and the last would have been the same sort of outside the box effort as the K1 board replacement project. Considering Pentax's rich tradition and deep used market, this could have been a winner---for all their cameras---and would have played to one of Pentax's true strengths.

[reh321]

They probably consider/considered going mirror less which, for 645 would be relevant.
But then a Pentax being mirrorless is a marketing problem, being in contradiction with what they otherwise say.

The main thing they say is that they want their users to be ‘having fun’.
I don’t see how their going mirrorless would contradict that.