[bossa]

IMHO that was Pentax biggest mistake.. when they started to think like that is when they start to lose high end custumers.. I can say that there is just a FEW people with APS-C that jump straight to MF, on the other hand, many advance APS-C users can and will jump to FF in the near future if they want to....

The thing here is that Pentax at this time doenst have nothing to equial a FF sensor quality for example the D750 or D810 .. and yes.. we do have the 645Z but, for how much?? do you really think that average K5ii, K50 or even K3 users will spend $10.000 + on camera equipment? i really dont think so.. But what if they can get a FF sensor for their FF lenses for lets say $2000 ..mmmm totally different story there.

If they dont do it at this time when is a good time?? :/ :/ thats the thing.. when?? Canikons have around 10 years on the FF market.. and we?? Actually our right time was 10 years ago. :/ :/ they cant keep thinking to wait for a good time cuz there will never be a good time, what is going to happen is that more and more high end APS-C users will switch to other brands because the lack of a FF body.

I've been banging on about a Pentax MF Mirrorless camera which could feature FF crop modes, and thus an upgrade path up to MF lenses, for ages but have always been decried by the "experts" on this site. Lo and behold Phase One are releasing a modular Mirrorless MF, although the price is obscene when you add the digital back. That's not to say it will offer crop modes either but I suspect it will.

The 645Z is a great camera but another "let's paint ourselves into a corner" move by Pentax. They could have made it modular - offering an adapter to increase registration distance for older MF lenses - and it would have been as small as a D810 thus allowing Pentax FF lenses to be used without an adapter and been directly competitive, physically and price wise, with FF cameras.

They should have taken their loss now, rather than the much larger one coming later - it will be nigh but impossible for them to transition to a mirrorless format when the stable of new lenses has grown.

---

Last edited by bossa; 11-17-2014 at 03:33 PM.

[LensBeginner]

*snip*
They should have taken their loss now, rather than the much larger one coming later - it will be nigh but impossible for them to transition to a mirrorless format when the stable of new lenses has grown.

Looks like the 645Z has been a huge hit on the market... so I'd say better an egg today...
There's plenty of time for losses... besides, do you mean 35mm MF lenses? or MF MF lenses? because for the former there's still hope...

[bossa]

Looks like the 645Z has been a huge hit on the market... so I'd say better an egg today...
There's plenty of time for losses... besides, do you mean 35mm MF lenses? or MF MF lenses? because for the former there's still hope...

I meant they could have built a 35mm crop mode into a mirrorless 645z that would have allowed direct fitting of current FF lenses without adapters.

I realize the 645z is a hit (I'd love one myself) but I am trying to image where they can go with it once the lenses are in place.

[LensBeginner]

I meant they could have built a 35mm crop mode into a mirrorless 645z that would have allowed direct fitting of current FF lenses without adapters.

I realize the 645z is a hit (I'd love one myself) but I am trying to image where they can go with it once the lenses are in place.

They can still do that. And they now have a larger user base for "645" format.
Prices of used 645 lenses have grown a lot, so they can sell more new lenses (because there's less difference in price with used ones). If they'd done as you said maybe a lot of people would have just bought old FF lenses (dirt cheap) instead of new expensive 645 lenses...

[Big Dave]

Ibee've n banging on about a Pentax MF Mirrorless camera which could feature FF crop modes, and thus an upgrade path up to MF lenses, for ages but have always been decried by the "experts" on this site. Lo and behold Phase One are releasing a modular Mirrorless MF, although the price is obscene when you add the digital back. That's not to say it will offer crop modes either but I suspect it will.

The 645Z is a great camera but another "let's paint ourselves into a corner" move by Pentax. They could have made it modular - offering an adapter to increase registration distance for older MF lenses - and it would have been as small as a D810 thus allowing Pentax FF lenses to be used without an adapter and been directly competitive, physically and price wise, with FF cameras.



They should have taken their loss now, rather than the much larger one coming later - it will be nigh but impossible for them to transition to a mirrorless format when the stable of new lenses has grown.

Actually a MF mirror-less body could use all of the 645Z lenses in full auto with a proper adapter. Adapters could be used to mount just about any lens, FF or MF on it. A EVF would allow a cropped FF mode to be properly displayed in the view finder like my A7R. It would be very portable with the smaller lenses.

[bossa]

Actually a MF mirror-less body could use all of the 645Z lenses in full auto with a proper adapter. Adapters could be used to mount just about any lens, FF or MF on it. A EVF would allow a cropped FF mode to be properly displayed in the view finder like my A7R. It would be very portable with the smaller lenses.

Absolutely

[Clavius]

What could going mirrorless do to the price of a 645 format camera? I'm thinking of much less calibration, less parts, less manual labor, etc...? It's not going to move into FF territory, not even by a long shot. But the gap between APS-C and 645 is quite huge. It may earn them a lot more customers, who would otherwise have to settle for "merely" FF, something they don't even offer.

What I always find funny is this:
APS-C: crop 1.5
APS-H: crop 1.29
35mm: crop 1
645-Z: crop 0.78

The current 645-crop is almost exactly as worthwile as APS-H. Less worthwile if you calculate the extra costs in.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

What could going mirrorless do to the price of a 645 format camera? I'm thinking of much less calibration, less parts, less manual labor, etc...? It's not going to move into FF territory, not even by a long shot. But the gap between APS-C and 645 is quite huge. It may earn them a lot more customers, who would otherwise have to settle for "merely" FF, something they don't even offer.

What I always find funny is this:
APS-C: crop 1.5
APS-H: crop 1.29
35mm: crop 1
645-Z: crop 0.78

The current 645-crop is almost exactly as worthwile as APS-H. Less worthwile if you calculate the extra costs in.

You have to understand why people want to move to a larger format
Resolution
Low light performance
And versatility
As far as MF it has FF beat with resolution but as far as low light goes until MF can compete with 24 f/1.4, 30 F1.4, 50 F/1.2&1.4, 85 F/1.4 and 200 F/2 low light performance still lies with FF. And far as versatility most of the $3000- 2400 FF still hold the versatility in their court with af accuracy and speed and lens selection.
That only leaves resolution for the 645z at a cost that’s nearly double a FFs counter part

[normhead]

As far as MF it has FF beat with resolution but as far as low light goes until MF can compete with 24 f/1.4, 30 F1.4, 50 F/1.2&1.4, 85 F/1.4 and 200 F/2 low light performance still lies with FF.

That's not relevant to a large number of people, because we shoot in low light for DoF, as in sunsets and sunrises. A lot of us din't care about low light performance in terms of wide open, we care about low light performance at ƒ5.6 or ƒ8. People seem to forget, many of us are not interested in shooting much at large apertures. The technical limitations of doing so, in terms of narrow DoF make it unattractive. For us, ƒ1.8 is rarely used even if we have it. For most of my images even ƒ2.8 is un-acceptable. These general types of blanket statements are usually dismissive of whole portions of the photographic community, acting as if the niche is the norm.

You have a good point though, in that so many FF shooters are so tied to the narrow DoF thing, they simply aren't candidates to move to a larger format. 35mm is the sweet spot, for that type of shooter.

Read through this thread, you won't find many complaints about no ƒ1.4 lenses, but then, these are MF shooters. Not everyone even wants to shoot MF. Some guys think MF should be 35mm only better, and that we all strive to shoot in total darkness with fast lenses. And that is an unwise assumption. Read through this thread and what you'll find is a completely different mindset. Lets not forget, the guys pushing the whole FF mindset, razor thin DoF with fast lenses, don't make MF cameras. FF is their top of the line. They are using their resources to make sure most FF shooters never understand the need for FF. It would cost them business. True MFers are finding their way, despite their efforts. And true FF shooters are still acting like MF is just FF but not as good. <cough> morons <cough>.

Used the way MF shooters use it, the Pentaxz 645z easily surpasses the low light performance of the hi res FF cameras.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/48-pentax-medium-format/87027-post-your-m...hotos-414.html

[redcat]

the Pentaxz 645z easily surpasses the low light performance of the hi res FF cameras.

Medium format surpasses FF is nothing to be surprised, I saw a lot of pro photo shoot with Phase One, 645 and they are in a whole new level !!! FF photos are just blown away in term of details, light, color... well, every aspect.

Back to the subject : https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/169-pentax-full-frame/279685-pentax-full-...oto-paris.html

[kooks]

Used the way MF shooters use it, the Pentaxz 645z easily surpasses the low light performance of the hi res FF cameras.

With a difference of several $$$$$ that not every mortal can pay..

As we all know not every photographer will use a FF for the same porpuses.. im my case i will love to use a FF at f1.8 or even f1.4 actually a rarely go more than f5.6 ... If you ask an indoor event, fashion, portrait or even fine art photographers.. what they are looking is for LIGHT.. more light without noise and GREAT resolution.. as simple as that... Just to have the chance to take great pictures of fast moving objects at low light conditions..

Perhaps around here we dont see that many people asking for large apertures simple because through all this years Pentax havent really point to that target of photographers, so from the actual amounth of Pentax users we dont have that many users shooting this kind of photos, and IMO is because at this time the cameras are kind of more focus on other styles such as nature, wildlife, panoramic, etc.. almost every indoor event photographer will look for a fast lens, same as portraits, fashion, etc.. and the IDEAL is to use this lenses with a FF body.

[normhead]

As we all know not every photographer will use a FF for the same porpuses.. im my case i will love to use a FF at f1.8 or even f1.4 actually a rarely go more than f5.6 ... If you ask an indoor event, fashion, portrait or even fine art photographers.. what they are looking is for LIGHT.. more light without noise and GREAT resolution.. as simple as that... Just to have the chance to take great pictures of fast moving objects at low light conditions..

How many of these photographers have you talked to? Because we have event photographer shooting with APS-c posting right here on the forum. Portrait and fine art photographers too. I'm wondering what your qualification is for speaking for these people? What I noticed when I went to Photo Extract and made a count of what photographers used what, I found the number of cameras used for the fine art photos was almost completely in line with the market share of the camera. I saw no indication that any photographer "had" to use any format of camera. IN fact everything from low end APS-c to high end FF was represented.

[kooks]

How many of these photographers have you talked to? Because we have event photographer shooting with APS-c posting right here on the forum. Portrait and fine art photographers too. I'm wondering what your qualification is for speaking for these people? What I noticed when I went to Photo Extract and made a count of what photographers used what, I found the number of cameras used for the fine art photos was almost completely in line with the market share of the camera. I saw no indication that any photographer "had" to use any format of camera. IN fact everything from low end APS-c to high end FF was represented.

I didnt say that there are none.. I never say that somebody NEEDS to use a special format... dont mess words around... I shoot events, nightclub events and i use APS-C.. so im not saying that we dont have this kind of shooters at all because we do, i am myself one of those.. What I am saying is that the ideal for this kind of photography is to use a "fast lens" and specially with FF because of the ISO tolerance, as simple as that, you cant compare the ISO performance of an APS-C sensor with a FF, you just cant, at this time APS-C is just way behind FF in that, perhaps someday it will be better, but not now.

So, ofcourse everybody can shoot anything.. why not? .. there are some photographer that use iPhones.. so what? it could be a great photo too... BUT the fact is that APS-C bodies have some limitations for some styles of photography, and there are situations where a FF becomes more useful, thats it...

Is not that a photographer can not take the picture, it is that it will not be taking as easy/confortable or even "good" as it could be with for example a FF and fast lens especially in case of low light situations, an fast moving objects, with good light it doesnt really matter the sensor that much ( or in my case i woudnt even mind to get a FF ), but in low light... mmmmmm.. that could be another story.

[normhead]

BUT the fact is that APS-C bodies have some limitations for some styles of photography, and there are situations where a FF becomes more useful, thats it...

If you added that APS-c has advantages that FF doesn't for some types of photography, you'd have a balanced statement there.

[kooks]

If you added that APS-c has advantages that FF doesn't for some types of photography, you'd have a balanced statement there.

well ofcourse... every sensor have its advantages thats a fact too.. for example with APS-C i love that prices are much better.. telephoto lenses becames "longer".. camera bodies are in general smaller and lighter.. so yes, APS-C have some important advantages too, it all depends of each style..

FF isnt perfect.. i think that there is absolutely no camera that is perfect, each camera have its faults... so we just gotta look what fits better for each style..