[redrockcoulee]

You got it complete wrong. Why would anyone want a Mamiya or Hasseblad if they could buy a Pentax? The Pentax 645D is ultramodern DSLR, not a old relic with an add on back. It is a K-7 with 39mp sensor.
Besides, the 645D will be cheaper than the competition. It is a field camera not a clumsy studio tool. It the same size as a K10D with battery grip; smaller than the pro Nikon and Canon bodies. The lenses are much cheaper and more numerous both is volume and types than the MF competition.
If it cost $10 000 or less, Pentax will have a hard time making enough of them.

Yes Hasselblad makes and sells digital backs for their V system classic square format camera (and is that a bad thing to be backwards compatible?) but the H series is a modern autofocus camera. Mamiya has constantly updated their 645 and both systems are just as capable to work in the field as any new camera from Pentax.

Pentax's sucess in the MF digital field will depend on how sucessful the camera is in actual operation, the availablity of lenses and price not on bad mouthing great equipment made by other manufacturers. The Mamiya camera and back are in the same price league as the D3X but obvious each have different strenghts. The H system Hasselblad is far above in price that what Pentax will come out with and the latest CFV back for the V system is targeted to those who are committed to the old relic and what to add a digital back in addition to what they already have. I am one of those who do not see how a digital Pentax would do anything I could not do with my relic of a Hasselblad for what I use the 'blad for. Landscapes are not fast moving, I often do not need to use a light meter and I shoot for a square image. I could see myself someday buying a digital back for my relic.

Having said that I am excited about the Pentax 645 and wish them nothing but success and there are people who would be much better served for thier type of photography with the Pentax digital 645 than with the Nikon D3X or the Canon whatever Mark whatever (can never keep track of their models). Both of those cameras are supposedly great cameras only using the Nikon once. The point is that these are all good cameras and the Mamiya is the only real competition for the new Pentax in size and price. A successful MF Pentax spells good for those who use the smaller cameras as it will mean more exposure in the trade and taken more seriously.

Nikon has been rumoured to be thinking about medium format cameras for a couple of years and that is not a stretch as they have in the past made both medium and large format lenses.

The Mamiya 67 models might be more studio models than field models but in other forums I am on many use them in the field, the Mamiya 645, the Hasselblad H system which is also a 645 and the classic (read relic) Hasselblad V system are all excellent cameras in the field, perhaps not in sports photography but I used to go shooting with someone who did wildlife photography of hawks and eagles with a 'blad. The Pentax looks like it too will be a great field camera with a place in the studio.

As far as timing I think that Pentax is not too late. A couple of years ago perhaps they would have been as there was a large amount of medium and large format photographers converting to digital but now a think there will be a move from FF digital to medium format for many who do not need the fast frame rates to shoot landscape and can take advantage of where MF shines. And sensor prices have dropped so MF is now competetive whereas it was less so a few years ago. Even if I never buy one I think and hope that they have a potential winner there.

[Adam]

Pentax supplies my company with cctv lenses, so today i have a chance to have dinner with pentax seniro manager. He told me the pentax 645 digital will be released next April! But he admitted there is no ff dslr plan in their road map.
i feel a bit disappointed when heard this. Maybe pentax will focus on the field conon and nikon never involved.

Great to know! Thanks! Will be looking forward to that 645D in April 2010...

[Jasvox]

Getting back to the OP...I am not surprised there is no FF on the road map...Pentax has been saying this every so often for the past few years.

Jason

[Zebooka]

They'd better finally invent new AF system instead of mythical FF with no produced FF lens.
I would prefer K-7 with new AF.

Also note that SR is not so effective with large sensors as they weight more. (See Sony FF cameras and Olympus 2x crops).

[jake123]

Is the 645D still a Japan only release? Is Pentax expected to continue the suport of this model? How long will 645D users need to wait between body upgrades? Will they need to wait another 5 years before the 645D mkii appears? What if Sony releases an A950 with 30+ mp (speculation only, there is no souce for this number), how will that compeat with the 645D? Will the image quality of Pentax's 39 mp beat the Sony, and be enough to justify the $5000.00 premium? How will the value of an $8,000.00 MF body look against the FF offerings from Canikon in just two years time?

Obviously I don't understand why Pentax is producing the 645D.

I don't think the current FF lenses can handle 24mp, let alone 30mp+

[KungPOW]

An APS-C sensor is about 1/2 the size of a FF sensor. So the pixel density of a FF 30mp is about the same as 14.5 mp APS-C.

Asuming the lens covers the full frame, and is sharp corner to corner, there should be no real image difference between using the lens on FF or APS-C.

A FF 30mp will not out-resolve the lens.

[Cideway]

Is the 645D still a Japan only release? Is Pentax expected to continue the suport of this model? How long will 645D users need to wait between body upgrades? Will they need to wait another 5 years before the 645D mkii appears? What if Sony releases an A950 with 30+ mp (speculation only, there is no souce for this number), how will that compeat with the 645D? Will the image quality of Pentax's 39 mp beat the Sony, and be enough to justify the $5000.00 premium? How will the value of an $8,000.00 MF body look against the FF offerings from Canikon in just two years time?

Obviously I don't understand why Pentax is producing the 645D.

Obviously spoken from some one who has never seen an image taken from a medium format chip, the detail is incredible and cannot be matched by anything from a 35mm chip, i have seen images taken from one of the 22mp backs and it blows away every one of the full frame cameras in every IQ respect except for high ISO, bellow 400 ISO 35mm cannot touch the MFDs.

The other reason Pentax are releasing this body is the millions of 645 and 67 lenses out there and the photographers that own them and would like to use them.

---

Last edited by Cideway; 11-28-2009 at 04:21 AM.

[Ben_Edict]

You got it complete wrong. Why would anyone want a Mamiya or Hasseblad if they could buy a Pentax? The Pentax 645D is ultramodern DSLR, not a old relic with an add on back. It is a K-7 with 39mp sensor.
Besides, the 645D will be cheaper than the competition. It is a field camera not a clumsy studio tool. It the same size as a K10D with battery grip; smaller than the pro Nikon and Canon bodies. The lenses are much cheaper and more numerous both is volume and types than the MF competition.
If it cost $10 000 or less, Pentax will have a hard time making enough of them.

I don't think so... What is old about a H'blad H4? Have you seen the latest Mamiya/PhaseOne cameras? If the 645 where the same size as an K10, you couldn't use the existing 645 lenses, because they need the flange to back distance of the old 645! A H3 or H4 is hardly bigger than a Pentax 645, may be even smaller.

With H'Blad or Mamiya you get a wide choice to build the system you really need or can afford. You have different res back up to 59 MP and you get the 39MP of a Pentax 645D quite cheap, if you wish so. The choice of lenses for both systems does not seem to be smaller than that for Pentax 645, at least I wouldn't know.

I think, Pentax knows quite well, that they are not going to produce a market leader. That is the reason, why they announced to sell it only in their Japanese home market.

If Pentax intends to compete with high-end DSLRs, they have to compete ageinst something like 50 current lenses available for Nikon or Canon respectively, against a very capable flash system and against a price tag of around 5000 Euros. I cannot sensibly see this as a success promising route.

Ben

[Ben_Edict]

Obviously spoken from some one who has never seen an image taken from a medium format chip, the detail is incredible and cannot be matched by anything from a 35mm chip, i have seen images taken from one of the 22mp backs and it blows away every one of the full frame cameras in every IQ respect except for high ISO, bellow 400 ISO 35mm cannot touch the MFDs.

There was a nice comparisson in a recent issue of Professional Photographer (UK), between images of the Nikon D3 and an old 19MP PhaseOne back. The PhaseOne images, despite the old and low res sensor, blew away the best FF DSLR images for colour rendition, fine tonality and detail. This review is worth reading.

Ben

[Pål Jensen]

I don't think so... What is old about a H'blad H4? Have you seen the latest Mamiya/PhaseOne cameras? If the 645 where the same size as an K10, you couldn't use the existing 645 lenses, because they need the flange to back distance of the old 645! A H3 or H4 is hardly bigger than a Pentax 645, may be even smaller.

With H'Blad or Mamiya you get a wide choice to build the system you really need or can afford. You have different res back up to 59 MP and you get the 39MP of a Pentax 645D quite cheap, if you wish so. The choice of lenses for both systems does not seem to be smaller than that for Pentax 645, at least I wouldn't know.

I think, Pentax knows quite well, that they are not going to produce a market leader. That is the reason, why they announced to sell it only in their Japanese home market.

If Pentax intends to compete with high-end DSLRs, they have to compete ageinst something like 50 current lenses available for Nikon or Canon respectively, against a very capable flash system and against a price tag of around 5000 Euros. I cannot sensibly see this as a success promising route.

Ben

- The Pentax 645D IS the same size as a K10D with battery grip. I did not say it share competely similar measurements in all direction (the K10D is taller but less deep).
- All medium format cameras currently available are dinosaurs compared to a K-7 (and hence the 645D as they are amost certainly the same camera).
- The wide choice of Hasselblad. Fine. Hardly anyone can afford them. The reason for digital backs is that none of the traditional MF companies have the resources to develop a MF digital body from scratch. Those who did went all bankrupt in the process. When a DSLR cost $20 000 000 to develop and the sales potential is 5000 units at most, the math doesn't add up.
- The 645D will be markedet worldwide and I'm confident that the first year production volume is larger than last years global MF digital sales combined, provided that the price is $10 000 or less....

[Pål Jensen]

This is the "small" APS Pentax K10D compared to the "big" Pentax 645NII.
The K10D with the DA* 16-50/2.8. The 645NII with FA645 33-55/4.5.

As can be seen from the images, this camera is far from the traditional large MF studio tools. The 645D will be a portable field camera smaller than pro FF DSLR from Nikon and Canon. The lenses are no larger than Canon L-glass. I believe Pentax have a winner here....

[Rondec]

My understanding is that the allure of larger formats is that diffraction starts later and so you can shoot comfortably at much smaller apertures. It is why Ansel Adams used medium and large format cameras almost exclusively.

As far as price, a leak said it would be around 9000 US Dollars, for what that is worth.

[thibs]

An APS-C sensor is about 1/2 the size of a FF sensor. So the pixel density of a FF 30mp is about the same as 14.5 mp APS-C.

Asuming the lens covers the full frame, and is sharp corner to corner, there should be no real image difference between using the lens on FF or APS-C.

A FF 30mp will not out-resolve the lens.

True, except that an FF lens on APS-C sensor will use the 'sweet spot' (center) of the lens, usually better. Some lenses *might* be just 'OKish' outside of the center.

They may be very good as well. Only way to know would be to use them owith adapters on Canon FF and check the quality.

[Ben_Edict]

This is the "small" APS Pentax K10D compared to the "big" Pentax 645NII.
The K10D with the DA* 16-50/2.8. The 645NII with FA645 33-55/4.5.

As can be seen from the images, this camera is far from the traditional large MF studio tools. The 645D will be a portable field camera smaller than pro FF DSLR from Nikon and Canon. The lenses are no larger than Canon L-glass. I believe Pentax have a winner here....

Pål - yes, I know that. But a current Hasselblad H3 or H4 is NO way bigger. Also a Mamiya/PhaseOne 645 is not bigger. So, there is no size advantage of the Pentax 645 over its direct competitors. Even an old Hasselblad V series camera is quite small and hardly bigger than a 645, apart from the slightly longer flang-distance. This is, because Hasselblad was always a "field" camera in the past (not counting the EL/ELX modells) and all the 645 modells were aimed at the field market, too.

Ben

[Ben_Edict]

My understanding is that the allure of larger formats is that diffraction starts later and so you can shoot comfortably at much smaller apertures. It is why Ansel Adams used medium and large format cameras almost exclusively.

As far as price, a leak said it would be around 9000 US Dollars, for what that is worth.

The diffraction myth is only related to the necessary resolution of the film. For 35mm film you needed a airy disc diameter of less than 0.2mm, to have a "diffraction limited" image. But on LF the diffraction limit is bigger, because you would enlarge the LF neg much less to achieve the same print size. Therefor lower resolution is very acceptable.

So, diffraction is NOT a thing of the film format, but only of the lens' aperture. It has the same amount, whether used on 35mm or 10x20 inch - it will be only much more promiment on the enlargement of a small neg.

The main advantages of LF - though I think, this is open to debate and my personal opinion - is the better tonal rendition, than smaller film formats. Quite similar to what we see today, when comparing images from APS-C or FF versus MF or LF Digital Backs.

Ben