[Kunzite]

At what ISO?

[Pål Jensen]

I think this is perfectly why they're trying to position the 645 system as the Pentax "FF" - for sport, action, and events where you need speed and long range (and prints don't necessarily go up to meters in size), get APS-C; for studio, landscape, and where controlled shoots are the norm , there's the 645.

That what I want to do but the fact remains that I can't afford a 645z and I already own four 645 lenses....

[JimmyDranox]

That what I want to do but the fact remains that I can't afford a 645z and I already own four 645 lenses....

That's the fact. 645z is 3-4 times more expensive than many FF cameras. And if Ricoh thinks that they can present, and, most important, sell the 645z as a FF camera, they are fooling themselves.

[Kunzite]

They're selling the 645z as "better than FF", though.

[JimmyDranox]

Words...

[mecrox]

That's the fact. 645z is 3-4 times more expensive than many FF cameras. And if Ricoh thinks that they can present, and, most important, sell the 645z as a FF camera, they are fooling themselves.

Ricoh are not going to manufacture more than a very small number of 645z cameras, at least compared to any FF camera out there. So look at this from the other end. The 645D was never really pushed outside Japan, thus some proper worldwide marketing for the 645z + a sales target of, say, 40-50 per cent over the 645D = success. Which means Ricoh don't have to persuade everyone of anything, just tempt a relatively very, very small number of folks who can afford it into purchasing this system over what they would normally have gone for, such as a D800E and a suite of high-end Nikkors. Ricoh are waging that these folks are out there, which is likely correct. The interesting thing to me is that so far the Ricoh marketing materials I've seen completely ignore the competitors one would expect them to go for, namely Phase One and Hasselblad. So I wonder what the calculation there is.

The next time round, on the 645z Mk II, Ricoh start with a target of, say, 40-50 per cent over the 645z ... it's not that hard to see this one shaping up as a nice little earner using the effect of compound interest, so to speak. Eventually they'll hit a ceiling, since this is a very small market to begin with, but it won't be a bad market to own, not at all in fact if the view is that over time smartphones will drive serious photography more and more upmarket.

I'm not try to suggest that purchasing a 645z over any other camera is a good idea. In my case it would be a catastrophic idea (financially at least). I'm just trying to suss the business case at work here. Perhaps it's simply a case of "only fight the battles you can win".

[Pål Jensen]

Ricoh are not going to manufacture more than a very small number of 645z cameras, at least compared to any FF camera out there. So look at this from the other end. The 645D was never really pushed outside Japan, thus some proper worldwide marketing for the 645z + a sales target of, say, 40-50 per cent over the 645D = success. Which means Ricoh don't have to persuade everyone of anything, just tempt a relatively very, very small number of folks who can afford it into purchasing this system over what they would normally have gone for, such as a D800E and a suite of high-end Nikkors. Ricoh are waging that these folks are out there, which is likely correct. The interesting thing to me is that so far the Ricoh marketing materials I've seen completely ignore the competitors one would expect them to go for, namely Phase One and Hasselblad. So I wonder what the calculation there is..

My guess is that the 645z target is several 100% over the 645D.
The fact that Pentax do not mention the typical studio MF cameras is nothing new. Their MF cameras has always been marketed as field cameras and been designed to mimick 35mm (D)SLR's.....So high-end 35mm cameras has aways been their target....

[jatrax]

Words...

Marketing.

Perhaps it's simply a case of "only fight the battles you can win".

A win is always a win. And this one is important on a lot of fronts:

1. It establishes Ricoh in a market segment that their traditional competition has no presence in and cannot compete in
2. It threatens the competition's high end offerings from a position that the competition cannot attack
3. It gives camera shops a valid reason to add Pentax to the shelves again
4. It gives the trade press an opportunity to publish news about Pentax
5. It shows Ricoh is serious about professional, high end photography and counters somewhat the "they sell the pretty multi-colored cameras" remarks
6. It offers a camera that cannot be compared negatively to the competition no matter how hard the reviewers try
7. I suspect it will be a very profitable addition to the line and will help sell some very expensive lenses
8. It paves the way for a less expensive, junior version, using a FF sensor

[JimmyDranox]

Marketing.

A win is always a win. And this one is important on a lot of fronts:

1. It establishes Ricoh in a market segment that their traditional competition has no presence in and cannot compete in
2. It threatens the competition's high end offerings from a position that the competition cannot attack
3. It gives camera shops a valid reason to add Pentax to the shelves again
4. It gives the trade press an opportunity to publish news about Pentax
5. It shows Ricoh is serious about professional, high end photography and counters somewhat the "they sell the pretty multi-colored cameras" remarks
6. It offers a camera that cannot be compared negatively to the competition no matter how hard the reviewers try
7. I suspect it will be a very profitable addition to the line and will help sell some very expensive lenses
8. It paves the way for a less expensive, junior version, using a FF sensor

Al firsts 7 point are valid. At number 8, I hope so.

[Rondec]

The 645z is a fine camera for Pentax, even if it doesn't fit the bill for most folks interested in full frame. It is just a high end product that works well in the line up. Even if it sells ten times the number of units as the 645D did, it still won't compare to cameras like the 6D or, 600D.

Medium format is and will continue to be expensive, but worth it for folks who need what it offers.

[cali92rs]

Marketing.

A win is always a win. And this one is important on a lot of fronts:

1. It establishes Ricoh in a market segment that their traditional competition has no presence in and cannot compete in
2. It threatens the competition's high end offerings from a position that the competition cannot attack
3. It gives camera shops a valid reason to add Pentax to the shelves again
4. It gives the trade press an opportunity to publish news about Pentax
5. It shows Ricoh is serious about professional, high end photography and counters somewhat the "they sell the pretty multi-colored cameras" remarks
6. It offers a camera that cannot be compared negatively to the competition no matter how hard the reviewers try
7. I suspect it will be a very profitable addition to the line and will help sell some very expensive lenses
8. It paves the way for a less expensive, junior version, using a FF sensor

I agree with all but #2.
THis in my opinion, will not at all threaten Canikon's high end FF offerings. This is $2k more than the D4s, $6K more than the D800e, which puts this in a completely different price point. Also, the versatility and ecosystem of those cameras cannot be matched by the 645Z, which is much more niche.

If you were looking to buy a D4 type camera, you wouldn't seriously consider the 645Z (and vice versa).
If you were looking to buy a D800e, then the 645Z MAY be something you look at...if you don't mind spending triple the amount, on body alone, let alone flashes and lenses.

[normhead]

I agree with you, 24mp is 24mp, either APS-C or FF, they both have a 6000 x 4000 resolution. But a 24mp FF sensor (versus the 24mp APS-C) still has an overall advantages for the photographer when it comes to image quality and flexibility due to its larger pixel size.

IN good light and low ISO, I doubt that's true. APS-c definitely loses it's dynamic range faster as a rule, but at 100 ISO a K-5 has more dynamic range than any Canon, at least on paper. Although I have to admit, when you're looking at the numbers there are some pretty interesting anomalies.

So did you actually compare prints.. or do you have some examples? This is great stuff if you have examples. I (and many others) hate relying on other's judgement, in that we all have different values.

In my real world example if I was to provide one, my K-5 DA* 60-250 prints look practically identical to my buddy's Canon FF plus EF 200mm f/2.8L prints. I doubt you could tell the difference. This was on a day when there was great light, the subject wasn't moving and we were shooting at low ISO. I'n not going to say you can't come up with a situation where an 35mm sensor won't outperform an APS_c, it's has a number of advantages that have been endlessly discussed. However, that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of situations where the APS-c performs as well or better. The superiority of larger sensors for better images at high ISO is pretty much established. As is more magnification for APS-c at low ISO, enabling the use of shorter lighter lenses.

Just saying, if you select a specific situation, you can make any format look good. They all have their strong points.

But it's because you choose to make that format look good, not because you couldn't have made the other format look good by emphasizing it's strengths, should you have chosen to go that way.

[jatrax]

I agree with all but #2. THis in my opinion, will not at all threaten Canikon's high end FF offerings. This is $2k more than the D4s, $6K more than the D800e, which puts this in a completely different price point. Also, the versatility and ecosystem of those cameras cannot be matched by the 645Z, which is much more niche.

"Threaten", not seriously impact. I doubt it will make any significant difference in actual sales, but I would be shocked if folks at Canon and Nikon are not having serious discussions about how to counter that threat, or implied threat or whatever you want to call it. There was nothing in the market segment above them, now there is. Surely that has to be a threat that must be evaluated?

And it will impact sales of high end Canon and Nikon. I know a number of D800 shooters who really do not care about brand loyalty or even cost, they want the best quality and the most pixels they can get. The 645z is a serious contender for them instead of D800 or 5D mkIII. In total numbers maybe not a big deal, but huge PR when shooters choose 645z over D800.

[normhead]

The simple fact is, for those in the high res.. low light anything but sports and wildlife business, the 645Z is "the option". Everything else is a compromise. I don' know how you compare cameras with less resolution and low light capability to something that is top of class. The simple fact is, for that type of shooter, this is what you want. You may settle for a D800 or a D4s or something for portability , better lens selection etc... but, those are compromises you are going to have to make giving up low light performance and/or resolution. This is what you want, thinking up reasons why it's not what you want doesn't change anything. Especially for the high resolution guys... Canon and Nikon have nothing like this to offer at the moment. As it hasn't been released yet neither does Pentax. For hi-res landscape guys, the 645Z is simply the greatest thing since sliced bread. Talk yourself out of seeing that if you want.... it matters not.

[cali92rs]

The simple fact is, for those in the high res.. low light anything but sports and wildlife business, the 645Z is "the option". Everything else is a compromise. I don' know how you compare cameras with less resolution and low light capability to something that is top of class. The simple fact is, for that type of shooter, this is what you want. You may settle for a D800 or a D4s or something for portability , better lens selection etc... but, those are compromises you are going to have to make giving up low light performance and/or resolution. This is what you want, thinking up reasons why it's not what you want doesn't change anything. Especially for the high resolution guys... Canon and Nikon have nothing like this to offer at the moment. As it hasn't been released yet neither does Pentax. For hi-res landscape guys, the 645Z is simply the greatest thing since sliced bread. Talk yourself out of seeing that if you want.... it matters not.

Want is one thing...shelling out 3 months worth of rent is another.
Of course this will better than the D800e. But that camera is something a hobbyist can afford.

That is the same reason a Ferrari will not threaten a camry. Yes, the Ferrari is a no compromise machine, like the 645Z, but only a tiny portion of the population can afford either.
I am sure toyota thinks a lot more about the honda than ferrari.

Now if we were talking about PhaseOne or Hassleblaad, then that is a different subject.