[Rondec]

Had an interview a few months ago where they said they are currently considering new sensors for the upcoming 645 camera, but have nothing specific to say, K-mount is priority number one at the moment
– Demand is also a problem
– There is an issue with to what extent older lenses will be usable on a new sensor
– The current 645z is very good value for money
– It would not be possible to come out with something at the same price now
– (Asked about a mirrorless 645) It would be unfair to the people who had picked up their existing lenses
- (When it was suggested that an adapter would fix this) Yes, but one would expect them to come out with a whole set of new lenses, which would be unrealistic for many years.


I think before choosing the sensor for the MF they have to choose the sensor for the k1III.
Possibly they have made their choices and will let us know.

I think for the K-1 III they have chosen a sensor already and are probably pretty far in development. I have no idea what they are doing on the 645 side of things.

Mistral75 says there is no money in a full frame medium format camera and so maybe that's it. It would be amusing if the reasoning behind not doing a mirrorless 645 is that it would be unfair to people who had existing lenses, as though discontinuing the camera line wouldn't be similar.

That said, it seems like Pentaxians have figure out how to adapt their lenses to Fuji's GFX cameras, so it isn't the end of the world, even it is the end of Pentax's 645 line up.

[gatorguy]

Worse, no , but worth it, it don't think so either.

IMX411 (BSI, 151 Mpix), the latest (last?) 40.4 x 53,7mm sensor proposed by Sony Semiconductor Solutions, the sensor only used by Phase One in their IQ4 150MP digital backs ($42,990), is not listed among Sony Semiconductor Solutions' off-the-shelf sensors anymore:

Image Sensor for Consumer Cameras | Image Sensor for Consumer Cameras | Image Sensor | Products & Solutions | Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group

Besides, which lenses could Ricoh Imaging propose that could entice medium format aficionados into buying a $15,000-$20,000 Pentax with such a sensor?

There are only seven non-discontinued lenses left in the current 645 lineup, one less than the last time I had a look:

• HD Pentax-DA645 28-45mm f/4.5 ED AW SR
• HD Pentax-D FA645 35mm f/3.5 AL [IF]
• smc Pentax-D FA645 55mm f/2.8 AL [IF] SDM AW
• smc Pentax-FA645 75mm f/2.8
• smc Pentax-FA645 150mm f/2.8 [IF]
• HD Pentax-D FA645 Macro 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR
• smc Pentax-FA645 Macro 120mm f/4

of which six lenses covering the 'full 645' format, of which only two are somewhat recent: the 55mm f/2.8 (announced in March 2010, together with the 645D, 13 years ago) and the 90mm f/2.8 macro (announced in September 2012, almost 11 years ago).

Comparatively Fuji has a total of 14 MF lenses, 9 prime, and 5 zoom.

IMO If Pentax is considering another medium format camera they would have to bring along at least one new zoom and an updated prime at roll-out.

[reh321]

Discontinued but replaced by a K1 II.
If a 645 Z II replaces the 645 Z, why not?

As I have said on several occasions, medium format makes sense for film {because same emulsion yields more photo grains}, but I’m not convinced that demand is adequate to support development of a new digital camera. We shall see…..

[ngrover]

Perhaps lens production also has weight on the direction Pentax will go?

I don't know much about Pentax's medium format lens offerings. Are they due for a refresh? Or, can Pentax get away with producing the existing lenses for the foreseeable future?

Major third party lens brands have abandoned K-Mount. Pentax is reviving old designs ( 50mm f1.4 ) and farming out production of the 24-70 to Tamron. This gives the impression that Pentax is already stretched maintaining ongoing K-mount lens development.

Just thinking out loud.

[luftfluss]

Looking forward to the eventual Pentax 67III...

[texandrews]

Pentax could be an APS-C and medium format manufacturer, or it could be an APS-C and full frame manufacturer. But it hasn't got the resources to do both medium format and full frame alongside APS-C.

I'm not sure how you have determined this. They've been all 3 since 2016---but actually, before that since the planning for the K1 preceded its release but some time, and the Z was released in 2014, and there were already apsc cameras in the lineup.

So, I'll jump in with my thoughts about this "announcement"/ development. It's now 2023, and the Z is still a very capable camera, but is there any other digital camera that's had this long a run, 8 years? Undoubtedly they've reached the end of the supply chain (or hod done a while back) on parts---obviously the sensor, but probably other electronics as well that maybe can't just be re-manufactured. So this was all quite inevitable, just as it was for the K-70. The answer to that problem was the KF.

Will there be an answer in the medium format line? We don't know until Pentax tells us definitively. What they could do is also entirely dependent on what sensor(s) are available. But a new crop frame Z could be fine if it added IBIS, pixel shift, composition shift, plus several other upgrades, like 4k video---cropped down to FF.

So while this news is a bit deflating for me personally, as a Z enthusiast and owner of one plus 14 lenses, it's not like it's unexpected. I still have hope---all the mirrorless comments fail to consider that Pentax committed itself to OVF's for the whole line, and it's not like there's not a lot of mirrorless out there in apsc and FF. So the medium format mirrorless comparison seems odd.

[Dartmoor Dave]

I'm not sure how you have determined this. They've been all 3 since 2016---but actually, before that since the planning for the K1 preceded its release but some time, and the Z was released in 2014, and there were already apsc cameras in the lineup.

2016 was seven years ago and the market has changed significantly since then. Pentax has to make cameras that will give it a chance of surviving in the present day market niche that it has found for itself, and it can't do that with all three of APS-C, full frame and medium format.

Can I be clear here that I am NOT bashing the Pentax brand. I've been a Pentax user since 1980 and I think the current management is making some very wise decisions. I can't imagine why Pentax would choose to continue with medium format. It would be great if they continued with APS-C and full frame, but I think there are some real advantages in becoming a niche manufacturer of APS-C only optical viewfinder cameras with designs that will appeal to specific but viable markets.

Can I assume that "So the medium format mirrorless comparison seems odd" wasn't a reply to my post? I didn't make any mirrorless comparison, and for the record I despise mirrorless cameras.

---

Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 06-05-2023 at 11:39 AM.

[mlt]

Looking forward to the eventual Pentax 67III...

About as much chance as a 6x9 format GR digital, but we can dream ��

[Serkevan]

They've been all 3 since 2016

Not really. They haven't released any 645 product since... 2015? Clearly it took a backseat to developing (heh) a FF lineup.

[Fogel70]

The head honchos at Pentax have got an interesting decision to make, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make it.

Pentax could be an APS-C and medium format manufacturer, or it could be an APS-C and full frame manufacturer. But it hasn't got the resources to do both medium format and full frame alongside APS-C.

So which way do you jump? Do you ditch the full frame or the medium format line? Or do you do what might actually be the most sensible thing and become an APS-C only brand?

If it was my decision, I'd bite the bullet and go to selling APS-C only. The thing that would attract customers would be the optical viewfinder, things like a monochrome only camera (why haven't they thought of that?) and perhaps even a DSLR designed for fully manual operation. A sort of digital K1000. It's probably a good thing I'm not in charge.

Edit:
Oh, and they could do something really crazy like release a new film camera. Imagine the outrage that would cause. Pentax making nothing other than optical viewfinder APS-C DSLRs (one of them monochrome only) and a film camera!

Pentax medium format made a lot more sense back when they were the only “budget” option in a larger market. Now the competion have taken over large part of that market and Ricoh would have to invest more to be competitive in a smaller part of the market. The business opportunity they saw 20 years ago in medium format is not there anymore.

It seems more logical to invest in APS-C and FF as there are more synergies between them (same mount and largely same user base). As K1 seems to have been quite successful, and together with focus on FF lenses the last 7-8 years I think it would be a mistake to abandon FF, as it would risk a lot of FF users to abandon Pentax brand.

[Rondec]

Pentax could develop a 645 sequel. The issue is simply whether they can match Fuji with features and price. The GFX 100 is 5500 dollars on B and H. The GFX lenses all seem to be 1500 dollars plus. Considering that Pentax currently has a 645z with a 75mm lens on B and H for 4000 dollars, it seems like they might be able to match Fuji's price. I don't think it would be a huge seller though.

Sharing R and D with the K-1 III (which is certainly coming) would help some with the cost. The question would be to try to do IBIS on a crop medium format sensor or to go full frame without IBIS. I'm not a medium format guru and so I have no idea if there are more/newer lenses needed. If they can get by mostly with current lenses and add a lens or two over the next couple of years, I would think they could make it work.

The big issue may be opportunity cost. That is to say, is it worth it to them to take time away from a K-1 sequel development to launch a camera that will likely sell a few thousand units a year at most.

[Dartmoor Dave]

It seems more logical to invest in APS-C and FF as there are more synergies between them (same mount and largely same user base). As K1 seems to have been quite successful, and together with focus on FF lenses the last 7-8 years I think it would be a mistake to abandon FF, as it would risk a lot of FF users to abandon Pentax brand.

That makes good sense. If it were possible to develop a K mount body that could be manufactured with either FF or APS-C sensors inside the same basic structure then that would be a way forward. People who want FF could buy the FF version while those who prefer APS-C could go that way, but the underlying camera body would be basically the same. The only difference would be the motherboard and sensor inside an almost identical body.

[UncleVanya]

Here’s what I’d like: a fully featured adapter to use 645 lenses on a K-1. And a K-1iii body that used the adapter and had a 645 crop sized sensor in it. But I’m dreaming. The ovf is where this breaks down. I can’t see putting a 645 crop sized ovf in that body unless it was at a reduced magnification.

But even without the sensor size a way to use those lenses in fully compatible af / aperture automation would be a boon.

[JohnMc]

Well, if DPR can die...

[Fogel70]

That makes good sense. If it were possible to develop a K mount body that could be manufactured with either FF or APS-C sensors inside the same basic structure then that would be a way forward. People who want FF could buy the FF version while those who prefer APS-C could go that way, but the underlying camera body would be basically the same. The only difference would be the motherboard and sensor inside an almost identical body.

I do not think having different sized bodies add a lot of R&D and they will probably not save on manufacturing cost using same body for APS-C and FF. They can reuse a lot of what has already been done for K3 III and K1 II. It is other things that take a lot more resources, like developing new AF hardware and algorithms.

It will just lead to APS-C that is larger, heavier and less optimised for smaller lighter APS-C lenses.
If they are different, optimised for different things, more users are motivated to get both types of cameras and they can sell more cameras.