[DSims]

Well does it? Are you going to leave us hanging?

I wasn't sure, but apparently it does according to ElJamoquio above:

Yes... and that's what I based my reply on.

[normhead]

ELJay doesn't own a K-3 or A7 does he?

[tuco]

Well, does the K-3 have better AF than the A7r? I think that will give you your answer.

AF speed is a function of the lens too and not just the camera body if the lenses start having the motor in them. And the big body of the 645D could have a pretty large screw drive motor with some power, I'd think which might not equate to a K-3. I haven't shot any AF 645 film or digital lenses so I don't know how snappy they are. Perhaps someone with some experience with them could shed some light on that.

[philbaum]

I would be surprised if the 645Z's AF isn't better than the A7r. The mirrorless systems are nice, don't get me wrong, but the A7r's AF is still at least 5 years behind the curve.

Falk noted that in the K3 PF Review, that larger format cameras have an innate advantage in focusing over a smaller format, i.e. you'd normally expect a FF to better AF than an APS camera, so it follows that the 645Z is likely better at AF than a FF or an APS camera. But, the Pentax K3 was built with -3ev focusing capability and fast processing, so i'd assume these better traits were also transmitted into the 645Z.

I like mirrorless cameras as well, but I'd be surprised if even the K3 wasn't better than the A7r in AF speed, but thats just a guess.

[Winder]

There are a few cheaper lenses out there for the 645 system. You just happen to have chosen the newest (and most expensive) ones to point at.

There is only 1 lens under $1,000. I chose the newest lenses that were designed for high resolution digital sensors. All those other lenses are much older film era lenses. Like the FA Ltds they need to be updated.

The industry is moving to smaller bodies and lenses. The 645z is going the other direction. The future isn't bigger and heavier. Is Pentax is working on a sensor that is actually 60mm x 45mm (56 mm x41.5mm) instead of 44mm x 33mm. IF the plan is to go to a true 645 sized sensor then the larger lenses make sense.

[ElJamoquio]

I'm not so sure that the industry is moving towards smaller bodies and lenses... Sigma isn't. Nikon isn't.

[DSims]

There is only 1 lens under $1,000. I chose the newest lenses that were designed for high resolution digital sensors. All those other lenses are much older film era lenses. Like the FA Ltds they need to be updated.

The industry is moving to smaller bodies and lenses. The 645z is going the other direction. The future isn't bigger and heavier. Is Pentax is working on a sensor that is actually 60mm x 45mm (56 mm x41.5mm) instead of 44mm x 33mm. IF the plan is to go to a true 645 sized sensor then the larger lenses make sense.

There's a big difference between implying all lenses cost $5000 and saying only one is under $1000. And there are many lenses under $1000 if you buy used. Perhaps future lens releases will also hover around $5000. This could be an issue someday, but your statements don't even accurately reflect today's new market - let alone the used one.



I find it ironic that you said the FAs need to be updated, "like the [K-mount] FA Ltds do." I have a fairly complete K-mount kit, with FA (and F) lenses at the core. The two lenses that most need updating are the newer ones - DA* zooms. I like these lenses - in fact, I'm a big advocate of them both. But the DA*16-50 needs improved optical quality (granted, it's difficult in this FL range) and the DA*50-135 needs faster AF.

I don't read of people complaining about the quality of the FA 645 lenses on digital. And I don't think the MF competition has a large number of new lens designs either.



As to the larger sensor size - even Phase One and Hasselblad are slow to roll out new sensors. The development costs are high. It's one new sensor every few years, more or less.

Pentax will have to sell a lot of cameras to convince management - and then another company like Sony - to develop such a sensor for the next generation.

---

Last edited by DSims; 04-27-2014 at 01:42 PM.

[RonHendriks1966]

The industry is moving to smaller bodies and lenses. The 645z is going the other direction. The future isn't bigger and heavier. Is Pentax is working on a sensor that is actually 60mm x 45mm (56 mm x41.5mm) instead of 44mm x 33mm. IF the plan is to go to a true 645 sized sensor then the larger lenses make sense.

I don't think they will bring out a second model with larger sensor for 645 this decade.

[Rondec]

There is only 1 lens under $1,000. I chose the newest lenses that were designed for high resolution digital sensors. All those other lenses are much older film era lenses. Like the FA Ltds they need to be updated.

The industry is moving to smaller bodies and lenses. The 645z is going the other direction. The future isn't bigger and heavier. Is Pentax is working on a sensor that is actually 60mm x 45mm (56 mm x41.5mm) instead of 44mm x 33mm. IF the plan is to go to a true 645 sized sensor then the larger lenses make sense.

How many of Canon's full frame L lenses are under a thousand dollars?

I am not going to argue that medium format will ever be more than a niche market, but I do think it still provides a significant benefit over full frame for those who "need it." It does feel like the same arguments that are made for APS-C over full frame are being made for full frame over medium format.

The reason to go with medium format is for the lenses, though. They are top notch, even the older ones, and have rendering that is very different from most other SLR lenses.

[Winder]

How many of Canon's full frame L lenses are under a thousand dollars?

I am not going to argue that medium format will ever be more than a niche market, but I do think it still provides a significant benefit over full frame for those who "need it." It does feel like the same arguments that are made for APS-C over full frame are being made for full frame over medium format.

The reason to go with medium format is for the lenses, though. They are top notch, even the older ones, and have rendering that is very different from most other SLR lenses.

Its not that the lenses have superior rendering. It's the larger sensor. Put those lenses on you K-3 and they don't look as good. The current MF sensor isn't big enough to justify the jump from FF given the glass options and cost. The Pentax 645 system is designed for a much larger image circle that what's being used.

Canon L glass is expensive, but almost every lens in the series has been designed for digital with modern AF and seals. 80% of the 645 line are film era lenses.

[DSims]

I don't think they will bring out a second model with larger sensor for 645 this decade.

Oh, we have an optimist! So you're saying there's a chance!



I also like your APS-H idea. I've thought about it many times - it could take care of the FF SR image circle issues. I believe the market would be disappointed, but it's actually a very practical solution, IMO.

And seriously, I can imagine another larger 645 sensor coming out someday too.

[Winder]

I'm not so sure that the industry is moving towards smaller bodies and lenses... Sigma isn't. Nikon isn't.

Sigma and Nikon both have multiple lines of lenses. Sigma released the 30mm last year which is APS-C and fairly compact. They both have a "pro" line where size is second to speed and IQ, and then they both have a value line where we see smaller lenses.

Their big lenses cover the FF image circle and they can't go smaller. The 645 glass was designed for a much larger image circle than the current sensor, so the 645 lenses are a good bit bigger than they need to be.

Someone is going to put a MF sensor in a mirrorless body and design compact lenses for the short flange distance and the smaller image circle. When they do, they will have a MF camera the size of a K-3. When that happens both FF and the current tank like MF cameras are going to be in trouble.

[RonHendriks1966]

I also like your APS-H idea. I've thought about it many times - it could take care of the FF SR image circle issues. I believe the market would be disappointed, but it's actually a very practical solution, IMO.

I Always bite when APS-H is on the table.

So here's Pentax line-up:

• 645z with 44x33mm sensor
• APS-H with 33x22mm sensor
• APS-C with 23,4x15,6mm sensor
• Q with 7.4x5.6mm sensor

Making the APS-H real large that would make it half the size off the 645z (I would prefer a little smaller). Where the APS-H is twice the size off APS-C!!!

Maybe they can do the same trick that Leica does with the T. Make a new mount for APS-H and an adapter for K-mount (full functioning).

[normhead]

I Always bite when APS-H is on the table.

So here's Pentax line-up:

• 645z with 44x33mm sensor
• APS-H with 33x22mm sensor
• APS-C with 23,4x15,6mm sensor
• Q with 7.4x5.6mm sensor

Making the APS-H real large that would make it half the size off the 645z (I would prefer a little smaller). Where the APS-H is twice the size off APS-C!!!

Maybe they can do the same trick that Leica does with the T. Make a new mount for APS-H and an adapter for K-mount (full functioning).

The only bad thing about mentioning APS-h, is all the people who come on and say "That will never happen.", usually a lot less politely. APS-h is a cynic magnet as a topic.

How about this - a 12mp APS-H S(sensitive) sensor for a Pentax k-mount body.... come on, that would rock.

[ElJamoquio]

Their big lenses cover the FF image circle and they can't go smaller. The 645 glass was designed for a much larger image circle than the current sensor, so the 645 lenses are a good bit bigger than they need to be.

Agreed; the 645 is oversized both because of the register distance and the film size.

If I was starting up a camera company from scratch, a rangefinder and/or EVF MF would be on the list of cameras to evaluate. Unfortunately the more desireable a EVF is (larger registration), generally, the better the OVF is (sensor size/ovf size).