[24X36NOW]

Aside from Sony, FF DSLRs are not so far off the 645D price bracket given that the 645D doubles your resolution.

Just some corrections on this remark: The 645D does not double your resolution compared to any FF dSLR; it takes four times the pixels to double resolution, not two times the pixels. It would take 48.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Nikon D700, for example, and 98.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Sony A900 or A850. Further, this assumes in every case that the lenses can provide that kind of lofty resolution, which they may well fail to do. The Nikon D700, Sony A900, Sony A850 and Canon 5D Mk II are all priced below $3,000, less than 1/3 the price, and the Nikon D3S is just a bit more than 1/2 the price, so the 645D is in the clouds price-wise against anything but the Nikon D3X and the Canon 1DS Mk III, as respects FF dSLRs. Even as respects those two, the current prices are nearly $2,000 and $3,285 less, respectively.

On a general note, the idea that the 645D somehow "leapfrogs" FF dSLRs or makes them "irrelevant" is ludicrous. Medium format cameras appeal to a much smaller and much more specialized market, and offer far more limiting tools (i.e., lenses) and operating ranges (i.e., ISOs, frame rates) compared to 35mm format. They are completely different tools, but 35mm format is far more versatile. Pentax still needs to get off its rump and make a FF dSLR.

[er1kksen]

Just some corrections on this remark: The 645D does not double your resolution compared to any FF dSLR; it takes four times the pixels to double resolution, not two times the pixels. It would take 48.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Nikon D700, for example, and 98.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Sony A900 or A850. Further, this assumes in every case that the lenses can provide that kind of lofty resolution, which they may well fail to do. The Nikon D700, Sony A900, Sony A850 and Canon 5D Mk II are all priced below $3,000, less than 1/3 the price, and the Nikon D3S is just a bit more than 1/2 the price, so the 645D is in the clouds price-wise against anything but the Nikon D3X and the Canon 1DS Mk III, as respects FF dSLRs. Even as respects those two, the current prices are nearly $2,000 and $3,285 less, respectively.

Of course, resolution isn't dependent entirely on pixel count. Things like the strength or weakness (or lack) of an AA filter also have a large impact on actual resolution (in terms of detail captured).

I wouldn't worry too much about 645D lenses delivering sufficient resolution. They've often been shown to be sharper than most lenses designed for our APS-C cameras with far denser sensors... 6nm photosites should be easily handled by lenses that shine even on a K20D.

[HawaiianOnline]

Perhaps it would be better to move this discussion into the MF forum since the 645D has moved into the realm of reality?

[gazonk]

Even as respects those two, the current prices are nearly $2,000 and $3,285 less, respectively.

No. You can't compare American and Japanese prices. Japanese D3x prices are very close to 645d prices.

[ogl]

ŽÊ�^‚ÅŒ©‚éƒyƒ“ƒ^ƒbƒNƒX�u645D�v�iƒÀ‹@�j - ƒfƒWƒJƒ�Watch

new review with shutter sound




67 105mm F2.4 via adapter

[falconeye]

I wouldn't worry too much about 645D lenses delivering sufficient resolution. They've often been shown to be sharper than most lenses designed for our APS-C cameras with far denser sensors... 6µm photosites should be easily handled by lenses that shine even on a K20D.

I asked myself the very same question and had a look into this. E.g., I compared MTF performance of the new Leica S2 lenses and the SMC P-A 645 120/4 Macro.
-> https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/952034-post32.html

My general finding is that existing Pentax MF glass is a tad weaker than 35mm Limiteds (according to photodo) and the new S2 lenses are just stellar compared to anything. Don't know for the new DFA 55/2.8 which may or may not be excellent too.

Is this enough? Well, it depends on the point of view.

It is correct, you can expect about the same 100% crop quality we're now getting with a K-7 (5µm with slightly sharper lenses). And 100% crops typically don't look as sharp as at reduced sizes which is why we almost always sharpen. This means to expect a 60% increase in effective linear resolution over a K-7.

On the other hand, some people in the digital MF realm expect tack-sharp 100% crops. Something not known from APS-C or FF SLRs. But Leica M9 and S2 have demonstrated that be feasible. This means to expect a 100% increase in effective linear resolution over a K-7.

So, the question of being worried about resolution depends on the exact reason why you spent a five-digit amount of money.


Recent news I heard about the 645D seem to mean that Pentax did the same evaluation. E.g., the AA filter (645D is announced to have no AA filter) can be had as an option, for people not hunting for ultimate crop resolution. It remains to be seen if the new DFA 645 lenses are made for the other kind of people

[Rondec]

Just some corrections on this remark: The 645D does not double your resolution compared to any FF dSLR; it takes four times the pixels to double resolution, not two times the pixels. It would take 48.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Nikon D700, for example, and 98.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Sony A900 or A850. Further, this assumes in every case that the lenses can provide that kind of lofty resolution, which they may well fail to do. The Nikon D700, Sony A900, Sony A850 and Canon 5D Mk II are all priced below $3,000, less than 1/3 the price, and the Nikon D3S is just a bit more than 1/2 the price, so the 645D is in the clouds price-wise against anything but the Nikon D3X and the Canon 1DS Mk III, as respects FF dSLRs. Even as respects those two, the current prices are nearly $2,000 and $3,285 less, respectively.

On a general note, the idea that the 645D somehow "leapfrogs" FF dSLRs or makes them "irrelevant" is ludicrous. Medium format cameras appeal to a much smaller and much more specialized market, and offer far more limiting tools (i.e., lenses) and operating ranges (i.e., ISOs, frame rates) compared to 35mm format. They are completely different tools, but 35mm format is far more versatile. Pentax still needs to get off its rump and make a FF dSLR.

I'd say that this is selling against the D3x, not the D3s.

[Samsungian]

645D Assembled in Philippines image & K7 side by side comparision


ŽÊ�^‚ÅŒ©‚éƒyƒ“ƒ^ƒbƒNƒX�u645D�v�iƒÀ‹@�j - ƒfƒWƒJƒ�Watch

[ghelary]

645D Assembled in Philippines image & K7 side by side comparision


ŽÊ�^‚ÅŒ©‚éƒyƒ“ƒ^ƒbƒNƒX�u645D�v�iƒÀ‹@�j - ƒfƒWƒJƒ�Watch

Just saw that the 645D have both the FCC and CE logos on it, meaning that it can be sold "as is" in both area. Not sure if there is a lot of additionnal work for a camera (on contrary of a phone or a television set) but certainly it means that Hoya/Pentax do have plans for a release in US and Europe.

[Samsungian]

Excellent observation, foolish to sell 645D only in Japan.

I've read a few posts saying how small 645D is. Next to K-7 in that same image 645D seems big to me.

But its not a camera for me, may be a great deal compared to other medium format digitals but in my world $9,400 for a camera is an insane ammount of money. I've yet to pay more than $2,320 for any one piece of camera gear, D700.

Glad so many here at pentaxforums will most likely buy a 645D or maybe two.

[ogl]

Sale forecast for Europe - September, 2010.

[konraDarnok]

Just some corrections on this remark: The 645D does not double your resolution compared to any FF dSLR; it takes four times the pixels to double resolution, not two times the pixels. It would take 48.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Nikon D700, for example, and 98.4 megapixels to double the resolution of the Sony A900 or A850. Further, this assumes in every case that the lenses can provide that kind of lofty resolution, which they may well fail to do. The Nikon D700, Sony A900, Sony A850 and Canon 5D Mk II are all priced below $3,000, less than 1/3 the price, and the Nikon D3S is just a bit more than 1/2 the price, so the 645D is in the clouds price-wise against anything but the Nikon D3X and the Canon 1DS Mk III, as respects FF dSLRs. Even as respects those two, the current prices are nearly $2,000 and $3,285 less, respectively.

On a general note, the idea that the 645D somehow "leapfrogs" FF dSLRs or makes them "irrelevant" is ludicrous. Medium format cameras appeal to a much smaller and much more specialized market, and offer far more limiting tools (i.e., lenses) and operating ranges (i.e., ISOs, frame rates) compared to 35mm format. They are completely different tools, but 35mm format is far more versatile. Pentax still needs to get off its rump and make a FF dSLR.

You could apply this exact same logic to the never ending APS-C vs. FF debate -- it would be even more true. There's nothing particularly "full" about a full frame. It's just another format that's marginally different.

I can't be the only one that's tired of reading this stuff.

Moderators need to come up with a filter that automatically changes "FF" or "full frame" to something witty, like "ponies" . . .or maybe automatically moved to a whole different forum called "sour grapes" or "greener fields" under the off-topic header.

[Roberts]

I've read a few posts saying how small 645D is. Next to K-7 in that same image 645D seems big to me.

I would say that 645D is small and K7 is very small Look at numbers - 645D has roughly the same width and height as 5DII and D700, but is thicker:


645D cm 15.6 x 11.7 x 11.9 in 6.1 x 4.6 x 4.7

5DII cm 15.2 x 11.4 x 7.5 in 6.0 x 4.5 x 3.0

D700 cm 14.7 x 12.3 x 7.7 in 5.8 x 4.8 x 3.0

[rparmar]

Medium format cameras appeal to a much smaller and much more specialized market, and offer far more limiting tools (i.e., lenses) and operating ranges (i.e., ISOs, frame rates) compared to 35mm format.

You've just described Pentax perfectly. Their cameras are more limited than Canon and Nikon, but still we use them. Why is that? Perhaps because they are actually better (and better value) in those specific areas Pentax has chosen to target. And hence they make a better tool for those photographers with the same needs and interests. According to this logic, producing a MF camera was the perfect thing for Pentax to do. I am sure that's how Hoya looks at it.

Pentax still needs to get off its rump and make a FF dSLR.

This line of critique is old and lazy.

Would you say that Nikon and Canon need to get off their rumps and make a MF camera? After all, they've been sitting on far more resources and a much larger market share than Pentax for many many years. Should Holga get off their rump and make a technical camera?

Or would you admit that different camera companies can do different things for different markets?

[Samsungian]

Yes, much thicker as the image with K-7 shows & about twice the weight of either D700 or 5D.

The sensor plane distance between eos, nikon & k-mount are within a couple mm, so K-7 is good representation of how thin canon and nikon full frame dslrs are compared to 645D.


No biggie, I keep reading 645D is small, and thie image I linked for me makes it look big. Unless its front to back depth is not a concern ?



ŽÊ�^‚ÅŒ©‚éƒyƒ“ƒ^ƒbƒNƒX�u645D�v�iƒÀ‹@�j - ƒfƒWƒJƒ�Watch

I would say that 645D is small and K7 is very small Look at numbers - 645D has roughly the same width and height as 5DII and D700, but is thicker:


645D cm 15.6 x 11.7 x 11.9 in 6.1 x 4.6 x 4.7

5DII cm 15.2 x 11.4 x 7.5 in 6.0 x 4.5 x 3.0

D700 cm 14.7 x 12.3 x 7.7 in 5.8 x 4.8 x 3.0