[reh321]

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.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.

and they would have cost money focusing on a relatively few customers - money which Ricoh may have had better uses for.

[Zooland]

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.

Depends on your definition of “having fun”.

[reh321]

Depends on your definition of “having fun”.

Any time I am out-and-about with my camera, I am 'having fun".
Yesterday, for example, I drove around the state 'having fun" with my Q-7.
It doesn't have to be the 'latest and greatest' camera.

[Zygonyx]

Interesting contributions thibs, reh321, Pal Jensen & texandrews.

We basically agree on 645 line's development interest, but possible "no-hurry" state in Ricoh Imaging's investments priorities for now.

The priority probably beeing 61 Mpix K-1 III's development.

The new 645 would get later 100 Mpix and bigger sensor than the 2 first iterations, more likely with a big viewfinder and a more compact form-factor.

---

Last edited by Zygonyx; 03-06-2021 at 08:32 AM.

[SteveinSLC]

I'm not sure I get all the praise for the new Fuji being smaller. They haven't made the lenses any smaller or less heavy, so if anything, a smaller body is less ergonomic in terms of balancing the bigger, heavier MF lenses. Plus in my experience, MF cameras are on tripods a significant amount of the time, and in that case size doesn't really matter.
That said, kudos to Fuji for getting the price down. To be competitive, I think Pentax will have to either go way up market with the larger sensor(which will be a risky and expensive move, and not supported by much modern glass), or just add IBIS and pixelshift to the current body, while maintaining a relatively low price. That seems a more likely option to me.

[thibs]

Interesting contributions thibs, reh321, Pal Jensen & texandrews.

We basically agree on 645 line's development interest, but possible "no-hurry" state in Ricoh Imaging's investments priorities for now.

The priority probably beeing 61 Mpix K-1 III's development.

The new 645 would get later 100 Mpix and bigger sensor than the 2 first iterations, more likely with a big viewfinder and a more compact form-factor.

Thanks. But for a more compact form-factor, RI will be limited by the big mirrorbox of their 645 implementation.
I'm not sure it will be that easy to change much of the body form-factor.

According to wikipedia: "The Pentax 645 lens mount has a flange focal distance of 70.87mm". They'll have to make do with it. Or go ML (no I'm not pushing for ML).

[Pål Jensen]

Thanks. But for a more compact form-factor, RI will be limited by the big mirrorbox of their 645 implementation.
I'm not sure it will be that easy to change much of the body form-factor.

According to wikipedia: "The Pentax 645 lens mount has a flange focal distance of 70.87mm". They'll have to make do with it. Or go ML (no I'm not pushing for ML).

The mirror box needs to be about 2.5cm deeper than a K-mount camera (I've measured on mine). A max depth of the camera at about 8cm at the prism should be possible. Ie it could be made about 4cm thinner depth at the mirror box compared to the present models. I don't see why they could not build a 645 camera no larger than top of the line Canon, Nikon or even Olympus bodies. Perhaps even smaller. But it will be a bit thicker in the middle....

[thibs]

The mirror box needs to be about 2.5cm deeper than a K-mount camera (I've measured on mine). A max depth of the camera at about 8cm at the prism should be possible. Ie it could be made about 4cm thinner depth at the mirror box compared to the present models. I don't see why they could not build a 645 camera no larger than top of the line Canon, Nikon or even Olympus bodies. Perhaps even smaller. But it will be a bit thicker in the middle....

4cm is still quite some depth that could be "shaved off" indeed. That would be quite interesting IMO.

[Mistral75]

(...)

The new 645 would get later 100 Mpix and bigger sensor than the 2 first iterations, more likely with a big viewfinder and a more compact form-factor.

Sony are phasing out their IMX211 (FSI, 40.4mm x 53.7 mm, 100MPix). They are only providing deliveries for existing cameras.

The current upgrade path only includes two BSI sensors: IMX461 (33mm x 44mm, 100 Mpix) and IMX411 (40.4mm x 53.7mm, 150 Mpix).

[biz-engineer]

Sony are phasing out their IMX211 (FSI, 40.4mm x 53.7 mm, 100MPix). They are only providing deliveries for existing cameras.

Did you get confirmation from Sony operations managers?

[BarneyL]

Is Sony the only source of sensors for third parties?

[Zygonyx]

Sony are phasing out their IMX211 (FSI, 40.4mm x 53.7 mm, 100MPix). They are only providing deliveries for existing cameras.

The current upgrade path only includes two BSI sensors: IMX461 (33mm x 44mm, 100 Mpix) and IMX411 (40.4mm x 53.7mm, 150 Mpix).

Thanks.
Interesting enough, and for sure optically more demanding if this will be 150 Mpix.

[thibs]

Is Sony the only source of sensors for third parties?

Practically. Yes.

[lemono]

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.

If P645 wants to keep DSLR, the cost will be much higher than gfx100s.
DSLR has reflector, pentaprism and auto focus module but MILC dont have. The main reason for the suspension of the new 645 camera is the cost and price, that is which is the huge impact of the gfx100s I mentioned earlier.
So how high is it? At the K3III experience in January, I was told the price of new 645 camera would be more than $12000. The price was so high that I lost interest in confirming whether $12000 was a cost or a price.

[thibs]

Thanks. It is a huge difference indeed.
In those conditions, is competing with Fuji worths the huge investment ?
No wonder why they decided to take time to think.