[TwoUptons]

I'd certainly be interested in a 67III. For 35mm it'd basically need to be an ME super with KAF4.

The 67 adds a very big lens problem to the equation... Ricoh would have to come up with a whole new batch of big honking 67 lenses...
Though that would be really cool... they could call it the 673 and confuse everyone...

I'm curious about the 645, though... there are new lenses in production, and the low volume aspect is already somewhat built in to the medium format expectations, so development costs would already be assuming low volume, so maybe it's a more viable option.

Really, if it came down to paying $1,000 for a modern ZX-5 or $2,500 for a modern 645, what would it be?

-Eric

[ZombieArmy]

The 67 adds a very big lens problem to the equation... Ricoh would have to come up with a whole new batch of big honking 67 lenses...
Though that would be really cool... they could call it the 673 and confuse everyone...

I'm curious about the 645, though... there are new lenses in production, and the low volume aspect is already somewhat built in to the medium format expectations, so development costs would already be assuming low volume, so maybe it's a more viable option.

Really, if it came down to paying $1,000 for a modern ZX-5 or $2,500 for a modern 645, what would it be?

-Eric

I think the lenses for the 67 system are already good. Could just put those in production again with some automatic contacts.

[Wheatfield]

Not pellicle, but rather semitransparent quick return mirror (similar to the current SLRs' primary mirror, rather than to the old Pellix).

The viewfinder experience might be unchanged, depending on the transmission-reflection ratio. The current SLRs - as you are aware - do send part of the light to the dedicated AF system. Removing the pentaprism metering system might also help a little.
In low light the camera could switch to quick-return mirror mode. In good light the camera could stay in high FPS mode.

IMO this is a good compromise. I don't see Pentax developing a much more advanced AF system anytime soon - while even relatively inexpensive mirrorless have several times the number of AF points, and much better coverage than Pentax' best.

I believe any mirror that is semi transparent in the way they are in cameras is considered a pellicle mirror. Traditionally they are stationary, but I don't think that is cast in stone. The main mirror in most DSLRs have a pellicle segment that allows light through too the sub mirror and thence the AF sensor, and whatever else resides in the bottom of the mirror box.
But I could be wrong......

---------- Post added Feb 16th, 2022 at 08:17 PM ----------

The 67 adds a very big lens problem to the equation... Ricoh would have to come up with a whole new batch of big honking 67 lenses...
Though that would be really cool... they could call it the 673 and confuse everyone...

I'm curious about the 645, though... there are new lenses in production, and the low volume aspect is already somewhat built in to the medium format expectations, so development costs would already be assuming low volume, so maybe it's a more viable option.

Really, if it came down to paying $1,000 for a modern ZX-5 or $2,500 for a modern 645, what would it be?

-Eric

A modern 645 for $2500? That would be quite a feat as they are, at the moment, twice that for body only.

[Kunzite]

I believe any mirror that is semi transparent in the way they are in cameras is considered a pellicle mirror. Traditionally they are stationary, but I don't think that is cast in stone. The main mirror in most DSLRs have a pellicle segment that allows light through too the sub mirror and thence the AF sensor, and whatever else resides in the bottom of the mirror box.
But I could be wrong......

What's important is that we're on the same page about the actual thing we're discussing - I won't argue about terminology
I only made the distinction because at some point, someone (on the other forum?) expressed concern that a pellicle would be fragile.

The patent discussed here: New half mirror OVF&EVF Hybrid Viewfinder patent - PentaxForums.com
describes a quick-return semi-transparent mirror.

But I'd be surprised if they'd talk about such things in this meeting. I can't even guess if they'll ever implement it; I'm just seeing it as having good potential to close the complexity/features gap between DSLRs and MILCs.

[MMVIII]

I believe any mirror that is semi transparent in the way they are in cameras is considered a pellicle mirror. Traditionally they are stationary, but I don't think that is cast in stone. The main mirror in most DSLRs have a pellicle segment that allows light through too the sub mirror and thence the AF sensor, and whatever else resides in the bottom of the mirror box.
But I could be wrong......

---------- Post added Feb 16th, 2022 at 08:17 PM ----------



A modern 645 for $2500? That would be quite a feat as they are, at the moment, twice that for body only.

I think you are right. The main mirror has an area that lets enough light through which a secondary mirror can direct to the AF-sensor SAFOX... The larger the coverage of the AF area, the bigger this semitransparent area has to be. The light loss does not seem to be significant, otherwise we could see the area of the AF coverage darker than the borders. I can only speculate, but if the whole mirror would be semitransparent there should not be a difference to the viewfinder brightness of current models. Keeping the mirror still as a reflexmirror could therefore allow a standard mode as the current models with a short blackout (mirror swing), or, if the light is bright enough the mirror could just stay down, offering everything a mirrorless can (probably using one higher ISO, but can only guess). Sorry for being repetitive.

[Serkevan]

The main mirror in most DSLRs have a pellicle segment that allows light through too the sub mirror and thence the AF sensor, and whatever else resides in the bottom of the mirror box.
But I could be wrong......[COLOR="Silver"]

Yes, Ricoh's idea would turn the camera into a MILC, AF-wise; instead of the pellicle part being used to feed the PDAF array, it would feed the sensor directly, and the OVF would still work the same way it does now. Therefore you have two options: a "reversed" A-mount SLT, where the pellicle mirror stays in place (but the sensor is used for AF instead of feeding the EVF), and a "normal" DSLR mode, just with on-sensor PDAF. The idea is that in good light, like Kunzite and MMVIII said, the compromise is some light loss in exchange for ultra-high fps as the mirror stays down.

[JPT]

What's important is that we're on the same page about the actual thing we're discussing - I won't argue about terminology
I only made the distinction because at some point, someone (on the other forum?) expressed concern that a pellicle would be fragile.

The patent discussed here: New half mirror OVF&EVF Hybrid Viewfinder patent - PentaxForums.com
describes a quick-return semi-transparent mirror.

But I'd be surprised if they'd talk about such things in this meeting. I can't even guess if they'll ever implement it; I'm just seeing it as having good potential to close the complexity/features gap between DSLRs and MILCs.

I agree that they are unlikely to say much about any camera they haven’t released by that time. Also they are unlikely to talk about any new tech in an early stage of development.

However, about a year ago I read an interview with the K-3 III designer Wakashiro-San, in which the interviewer specifically asked about pellicle mirror cameras. His response was that they have not implemented that technology for the K-3 III, but that it might be interesting for a future camera.

So it’s anyones guess whether they will actually do that, but at least it is on their radar. I personally expect the K-1 successor to be an implementation of K-3 III technology mostly.

[biz-engineer]

If I had a chance to meet Ricoh marketing, I'd suggest a twin lens DSLR (2 x k mounts) for stereo imaging. Customers would have to buy two lenses of each focal length, which would compensate for the shrinking camera market.

[Kunzite]

So it’s anyones guess whether they will actually do that, but at least it is on their radar. I personally expect the K-1 successor to be an implementation of K-3 III technology mostly.

Yeah, I expect the same; the DSLR-with-AF-on-sensor thing might be for the future generation.

If they'd enlarge the AF area a bit, I'd be fine with a K-1iii using the K-3iii's AF.

[Wheatfield]

If I had a chance to meet Ricoh marketing, I'd suggest a twin lens DSLR (2 x k mounts) for stereo imaging. Customers would have to buy two lenses of each focal length, which would compensate for the shrinking camera market.

I'm sure they would be polite about it too.

[JPT]

Sho Niiro is one of the photographers to appear at this event, and Pentax has just uploaded a video of his saying why he uses SLR cameras.

It's in Japanese, but it's fairly easy to follow if you activate the Youtube captions.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

This other video featuring Takuma Kimura came out a few weeks ago and it's been discussed on the forum before. It it is from the same series, and it's notable that this photographer is also going to be at the March 13 event.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

I wonder whether other videos will appear featuring Mina Daimon or Kochi Akagi before the event.

[davidsladek]

The 67 adds a very big lens problem to the equation... Ricoh would have to come up with a whole new batch of big honking 67 lenses...
Though that would be really cool... they could call it the 673 and confuse everyone...

I'm curious about the 645, though... there are new lenses in production, and the low volume aspect is already somewhat built in to the medium format expectations, so development costs would already be assuming low volume, so maybe it's a more viable option.

Really, if it came down to paying $1,000 for a modern ZX-5 or $2,500 for a modern 645, what would it be?

-Eric

I have always been saying that they would totally blow the market over if they ever made 67 digital. Super expensive but noone else has such a portfolio of existing good lenses they could plug straight away. Also many many users with existing lenses and a lot of positive experience + nostalgia makes for the best PR

[biz-engineer]

I have always been saying that they would totally blow the market over if they ever made 67 digital. Super expensive but noone else has such a portfolio of existing good lenses they could plug straight away. Also many many users with existing lenses and a lot of positive experience + nostalgia makes for the best PR

Problem is I was looked at what good 645 / 6x7 lenses are for sale, and noticed the stock has decreased considerably. Photographer adapting Pentax 645 / 67 lenses to their MF mirrorless body, saving a ton of money by avoiding asking prices of their modern own brand lenses (Fuji/Hasselblad). If Ricoh would release a new 67 body, the used market for lenses would dry up very quick or prices would increase quickly.

[Pål Jensen]

Problem is I was looked at what good 645 / 6x7 lenses are for sale, and noticed the stock has decreased considerably. Photographer adapting Pentax 645 / 67 lenses to their MF mirrorless body, saving a ton of money by avoiding asking prices of their modern own brand lenses (Fuji/Hasselblad). If Ricoh would release a new 67 body, the used market for lenses would dry up very quick or prices would increase quickly.

????. I get close to 800 hits on Pentax 645 and over 900 hits on Pentax 67 over at ebay. Cameras and lenses are plentiful and cheap.

Some seem to forget that when new the Pentax 645NII was an expensive camera costing more than the most expensive Nikon or Canon bodies. A new "modern" film body would sell in tiny quantities and cost a fortune and have to compete with the dirt cheap used ones.
A digital 67 will never happen as it is a bad idea. Better to hope for a FF 645.....

[Smolk]

they could call it the 673 and confuse everyone...

I like that confusion

---------- Post added 02-18-2022 at 01:43 PM ----------

Better to hope for a FF 645.....

Indeed. And that's still a big hope, I'm very curious as to the direction Ricoh is taking here: a FF successor or closing the line. My crystal ball is hazy though