[ElJamoquio]

At the same equivalent ISO the 645Z will have the same noise (assuming the same level of technology). Unless you're willing to accept (or desire) less DOF there won't be any improvement in low-light noise performance for the 645Z.


The improvement expected from the 645Z is sharpness, not noise.

[tuco]

The improvement expected from the 645Z is sharpness, not noise.

Wasn't Phase One advertising the new CMOS sensor in the IQ250 will have 14EV of DR at base ISO and only drop to around 13EV at ISO 6400? And each pixel can have its own "shutter speed" or something like that? That is significant and different that what we are seeing today.

[stevebrot]

the competition talk seems geared to the bigtime pros and enthusiasts

One word..."Weddings"

The 120 roll-film camera has been the stock tool of better wedding photographers for decades* and only recently have they moved to FF dSLRs and the very expensive MF digital offering. The 645Z provides a the medium format feel to their photos at a bargain price point. Basically, it allows multitudes of small scale wedding photographers to be competitive again. This is huge.


Steve

* ...for the same reasons why so many of us pine for FF digital. You can do some pretty extraordinary wedding work with a larger sensor.

---------- Post added 04-25-14 at 01:40 PM ----------

Wasn't Phase One advertising the new CMOS sensor in the IQ250 will have 14EV of DR at base ISO and only drop to around 13EV at ISO 6400? And each pixel can have its own "shutter speed" or something like that? That is significant and different that what we are seeing today.

Yes, that would be significant and different and a significant technical challenge as well (the bolded part at least). It would be cool, but I have my doubts.


Steve

I'd put $20 on before the end of the year.

I think I also will do that. Today another person on the convent said that Tamron would release FF-lenses for Pentax this year... Hopefully when it comes it is not a 38MP but a 24MP.

[DSims]

The japanese camera industry has always had the same lenses rebadged with many names. Who knows what deals Ricoh has done and this would be a clever strategy to get a large number of FF lenses quickly onto the market to suit a new camera, minimal R&D costs and only a small outlay to change the cosmetics and convert to K mount.
Glenn

Exactly what I'm thinking. Even if they don't want to, as a practical matter they probably have to unless they want to wait a couple more years to release the product (that is, they'd have to delay the lenses, and possibly even the camera).

The fact that Hoya let some of Pentax' best lens engineers go only makes this more necessary. And the DA20-40 hardly took the world by storm - they have to do a little better than that IMO (at least for the prices they want to charge).

[JimmyDranox]

DA 20-40 could be a great sensation, but it's some years too late. Many years. Same with the FF.

For me, at this moment, a Pentax FF is not important. But in the next one or two years, a FF camera could became necessary, and if Pentax will not come with something, this can make me to change the system, even if I won't do it gladly.

[mee]

I think I also will do that. Today another person on the convent said that Tamron would release FF-lenses for Pentax this year... Hopefully when it comes it is not a 38MP but a 24MP.

Well that is nifty if all true. More so for us not jumping to FF any time soon.. would at least mean more lens choices for K mount.

[ElJamoquio]

Wasn't Phase One advertising the new CMOS sensor in the IQ250 will have 14EV of DR at base ISO and only drop to around 13EV at ISO 6400? And each pixel can have its own "shutter speed" or something like that? That is significant and different that what we are seeing today.

Assuming the same 'technology' of sensor, dynamic range will be the same at the same aperture diameter (same equivalent f-stop) and FOV - i.e. same equivalent ISO.

The larger sensor will be much better at base ISO level, when the smaller sensor has reached the limit of the ISO sensitivity (80 for the k-5). For the record, an ISO of 100 on the 645Z will be equivalent to ISO of about 25 on the K-5/K-3.

Maybe you'll open up the aperture. Are you willing to accept that shallow of a DOF? Maybe you like it. Maybe you'll tolerate it. If you require greater DOF then you'll 'just' have the same DR as the smaller sensors.

Maybe you'll lengthen the shutter speed. Certainly a possibility with many pictures.

FWIW, though, the K-5's DR is about 9 or 10 at ISO 1600 IIRC. An improvement to 13 at ISO 6400 on the IQ250 would be very, very good, indicative of a decade's worth of progress. Not believable until tested IMO.

[Winder]

Read the newly added section on 645z:PENTAX 645Z Stories by Engineers / PENTAX 645Z Special site | RICOH IMAGING

especially section 03:
The highest ISO sensitivity of PENTAX 645Z is ISO 204800, which is 128 times of the sensitivity of PENTAX 645D, ISO 1600. Namely, as the competitor, we see 35-mm full frame cameras rather than medium format cameras offered by other companies. Though it is just a matter of sensitivity, we always had the stringent stance in developing the [standard sensitivity] instead of the [extended sensitivity]. Ultimately, the judge is human eyes. We see the border line between the permissible range and the impermissible range. A big chance to show our skill was found in moving this line to expand the permissible range. Consequently, we imagine that consumers will be able to shoot objects which could not be shot so far or objects of which shooting had to be given up. With this model, we expect that pictures nobody has ever seen can be taken one after another. It is right that new pictures can be taken with a high-sensitivity camera. Moreover, if such a high-sensitivity camera is used with a low-sensitivity setting, the low-sensitivity image quality is very excellent because the camera has the remaining capacity to the upper limit.

They put 645Z as a like-135 full-frame but can offer much more (of course). If you read the whole intro to the 645z maybe you feel the same. They don't bother with 135, they basically said, we have MF, why bother 135!

That's it.

All of that sounds good until reality hits. That $4,496.95 90mm lens, and the $4,496.95 25mm F/4 lens kind of push the 645 system out of competition for FF. The lenses, size, frame rate, AF, and cost will keep it from competing with D800 or he A7r.

The 645z doesn't offer "more". It will never be a sports or a photojournalist's camera. Its a wedding/studio/commercial/landscape camera. 645 has always been a specialized format, and that's not going to change.

When I look around I see more and more professionals moving to smaller mirrorless units like the A7r or the Fuji X-T1. I don't see anyone going the other direction. The only way MF can compete with FF is to go mirrorless. The new 645 sensor requires a much smaller image circle that 645 film. Mirrorless 645 lenses could be designed specifically for the smaller 645 sensor and would be smaller and less expensive.

The new sensor is a big step forward, but the big news in MF will be when someone puts it in a smaller package with lenses optimized for the smaller MF sensor.

[ElJamoquio]

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.

[DSims]

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.

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

[ElJamoquio]

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

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

[Rondec]

All of that sounds good until reality hits. That $4,496.95 90mm lens, and the $4,496.95 25mm F/4 lens kind of push the 645 system out of competition for FF. The lenses, size, frame rate, AF, and cost will keep it from competing with D800 or he A7r.

The 645z doesn't offer "more". It will never be a sports or a photojournalist's camera. Its a wedding/studio/commercial/landscape camera. 645 has always been a specialized format, and that's not going to change.

When I look around I see more and more professionals moving to smaller mirrorless units like the A7r or the Fuji X-T1. I don't see anyone going the other direction. The only way MF can compete with FF is to go mirrorless. The new 645 sensor requires a much smaller image circle that 645 film. Mirrorless 645 lenses could be designed specifically for the smaller 645 sensor and would be smaller and less expensive.

The new sensor is a big step forward, but the big news in MF will be when someone puts it in a smaller package with lenses optimized for the smaller MF sensor.

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.

[philbaum]

The really exciting thing about the 645Z is the low light capacity and dynamic range at high ISO, and that's enough of an improvement over a 645D, I'm thinking I'd be better off waiting until the price falls on a 645Z, than looking for a cheap second hand or discounted 645D. For what I plan to use it for, the extremely sensitive pixels are worth more than the added resolution. So, just looking at my own idea of how I plan to use the camera, there's nothing in a D800 or A7r that impresses me. At 25,600 ISO they already show considerable noise. I suspect then the images finally come out, the 645Z is going to be a considerable improvement. And from what I can tell, improved noise capability is the next technological challenge, now that the MP race has pretty much played itself out.

I agree, i think there is commercial value in the digital MF format that the 645z represents. Its a big photographic world out there, and the idea that FF, even in such cameras as the D800 is going to solve everyone's needs, seems very unlikely to me.

To mention just one example, probably many of you have heard of NY Photographer Gregory Crewdson. You can see several videos about him on youtube or his latest documentary and trailer at:

Amazon.com: Gregory Crewdson: Brief Encounters: Russell Banks, Gregory Crewdson, Melissa Harris, Rick Moody: Amazon Instant Video

But the point is: he uses at least an 8 X 10 film camera (perhaps larger, i'm not an expert in film), scans the image, PP it in digital, and then has shows of large, almost wall size prints. These prints typically sell for $125,000 according to the above link. So these are fine art pictures, and at the sizes he prints, one could argue that he needs larger than FF, and even MF size may be inadequate.

There are commercial companies out there, and extreme fine art photographers like Crewdson, who would think nothing of spending the kind of lens prices mentioned below. Its nothing i will ever probably do, but there are some who need that kind of equipment.

[normhead]

All of that sounds good until reality hits. That $4,496.95 90mm lens, and the $4,496.95 25mm F/4 lens kind of push the 645 system out of competition for FF. The lenses, size, frame rate, AF, and cost will keep it from competing with D800 or he A7r.

I bought a second hand 645 with an a A-55 and A-75, and since I'm planning to use the 645 for landscape, I'm laughing if I ever get one. For wildlife , macro etc. there my K-3. I won't be spending much more than the cost of the camera, unless I want to. Let's not get crazy here.

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

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