[Yamanobori]

Please stop spreading nonsens when you only make a guess instead of doing research.

The FA lens serie is for sale at the time. I don't believe old stock, but new production. Some of them where already in production in Vietnam for some years. I have a 75mm lens dat is assembled in Vietnam.

I use the word "probably," which is stating possibility. You use the word "believe" which is doing the same thing. Yet my comment is nonsense, yet your comment is somehow truer? There are a significant number of posts here quoting Pentax reps that what is available is old new stock--you see I have been doing research.

Pentax certainly may put the lenses into production again. And then again, they may not. I believe they will start working with the new digital sensor format and develop a new line of lenses for that as well as a weatherproof line and let their old stock sell out. And is there anything in my background and experience that would suggest that that is an unreasonable claim?

BTW, when was your 75mm produced? Do you have any insight to Pentax's production schedule? I would be really interested as there are some FA lenses I am interested in.

[RonHendriks1966]

BTW, when was your 75mm produced? Do you have any insight to Pentax's production schedule? I would be really interested as there are some FA lenses I am interested in.

Well maybe I was somewhat harsh.

Just some years old, there is no Hoya in sight yet and warrentycard is printed in december 2004. So my guess is production in 2005-2007.

Looked at the serial number and there someone who bought a similar number in july 2007.

FA80-160, FA45 and A-macrotubes are Made in Japan.

[Yamanobori]

So I guess the next question is when the 645 film camera was discontinued? Why make lenses with an unusually large image circle?

This is what I speculate is the Pentax plan. They brought back the 645 mount so they had a chance to tap into their old customer base. They also had plenty of lens stock around and this would do two things, clear the stock as well as have a line of lenses available while they work on a new line--the Japanese catalog lists the FA lenses. Lenses like the 600mm f/5.6 is one of those lenses that never seem to go out of production simply because very few people buy them--actually, the production run just takes a really long time to sell out which is one reason for the price. If the camera bombed (and it could: the Mamiya ZD is an example), it would at least mop up some unwanted lens stock. I believe Pentax thought this was the best way to crack into the Professional Medium-Format digital market without losing money.

I could be wrong. Pentax may even take a middle of the road approach and keep some of the FA lenses in production and simply drop the least profitable. Only Pentax knows for sure.

If your warranty is printed in 2004, the run could have been the same year. If it is a revision date on the document, then the production could have been later. At that time, a 2004 production run could have lasted until 2007 and beyond--medium-format film was a shrinking market and a market with lots of second-hand cameras.

BTW, I worked in technical documentation for a camera company, although not Pentax.

And I still can be wrong.

[thibs]

The 645D is already "Cut Down" if you consider the lack of lenses available.

Laughable! LAck of lenses? LOL

[thibs]

Btw thé topic was moved to Medium format forum but this is indeed a rumour so why move it?

[Kenn100D]

Maybe Adam Knows something.....

[zackspeed]

from April of 2010 till February 2011 - ~ 6 000 units, I guess...

It´s a lower number of produced Bodys,noticeable under 6000 till beginning of february
Best regards,Andy

[Smolk]

What is there to cut down from? The lenses are to expensive for just a 36x24 full frame sensor. The camera is as basic as it can be. Loosing the wheatersealing is just some rubbers and some time to put it together.

Maybe lowering the price (in Europe it's to expencive) would make it possible to decrease the price and sell more.

If I go for a vacation to New York and buy the 645D there, bring it home as a toerist cam, then my intire vacation is for free, that big is the price gap.

Too true, although the difference with Europe is partly due to different social systems—which just happens to bite now. Not entirely though. The UK is even more expensive, although its social care is (far) worse than that of the continent.

Anyway, warranty would be problematic, wouldn't it? That also applies to those buying in Japan. I admit to be tempted.

[kadarpik]

may be between 20-30 mpix, this is much cheaper than 40 mpix version and there is not too much R&D ahead to change resolution. All MF vendors have different sensors. Theoretically they can add more speed into system in terms of iso and fps.

I do not think they will introduce FF 35mm, this does not make sense anymore except may be marketing. There are few users who win from it, APS-C sensors and glass have evolved to the level allowing print A1 or A2 photos already and the system can shoot in darkness. What magic the FF could give. Of course you get one stop more sensitivity but you have to stop down also your aperture to get same DOF. The system is much more heavier to carry also with FF glass and lenses get more expensive.

With 645D you can just jump to another game, you get much better optics/senors cooperation and huge jump in real resolution.

In MF from the other hand we can see even old lenses capable of resolving new 40 mpix sensor.

If they introduce a 24 mpix FF they must introduce new lenses as well, there is just few resolving such resolution at non center areas. Same story is all the time going on with Canons, they increase resolution and introduce L II lenses.

I conclude that the Pentax pro segment is evolving at 645D not FF, pros are moving from FF to MF anyway soon or they have at least one MF camera, it makes life much more easier. 24 Mpix FF and MF are not compareable in IQ. And it is quite sick idea to compete with CaniKon at the FF pro segment, even Sony is in trouble with its FF there. CaniKon ecosystem is very good and working well in sports, journalism, action, wedding journalism etc, but is is really weak in studio, landscape and fine art segment, most serious studio work is done today already by MF systems.

If they will introduce low spec FF the price could be $6500 25 mpix and they still have good margins.

[sjwaldron]

Right now the 645D is still $10,000 (USA) for the body and not in stock at the two big online sites.

At best a "cut down" 645D could be $4000 (going from the logic that a K-r is $650 and K-5 is $1500). I think that's still out of the range of most logical enthusiasts, but might be appealing to professionals who use full-frame. The professionals might not be interested though as the sensor would need to be one of the things cut down to reach such a price.

A stripped down version of the 645D just doesn't make sense to me. I'd say a cheaper 645D would make more sense to studio photographers, but cut into profits. They need to get tethering working first before they appeal to larger markets with the digital 645 system.

Sorry, this possibility just seem illogical. How much more of a market can they have at $4000 - $8000 over $10,000 and would cost reductions make the product unappealing?

[Smolk]

I don't believe it for a second, but at $4000, I'd be party to the stripped-down version (pending specs).

[dlacouture]

Other than resolution, what features are you going to cut to get the price down? The sensor to 35mm size? And that still doesn't begin to answer the problem of lens supply.

I'm not saying a distinction along the lines of the Sony A850 vs the A900 for a ~ 20% price difference would be utterly impossible from a marketing perspective, but just how much content are you willing to lose to cut the body price? Cutting into usability by removing dials and buttons just for the sake of product differentiation doesn't do much for the end user.

From a pricing perspective, 35mm full frame already runs anywhere up to $7500 plus if you're looking at a 1ds-mark IV or a D3x (or their probable replacements).

That's what they do with APS-C cams, no? I mean, the K-r is nothing like the K5, cost half its price, has half the buttons, but the two sell rather well...

Ok, a MF sensor is a big part of the price, but if they go for a lower-priced (hypothetical) 20MP, loose the WR and some fancy features (dual slot, some buttons, etc), I can see it easily costing 3K less (nearly all on the sensor, as the other features would amount to what, maybe 0.5-1K$?)...

[dlacouture]

The system is much more heavier to carry also with FF glass and lenses get more expensive.

Out-topic, but I just wanted to point out that this argument is moot, as truly equivalent lenses (meaning with the same Fov and DoF) have roughly the same size/weight/price, and that FF even offers some lenses that would be utterly prohibitive in APS-C...

I mean, can you imagine the price of the true equivalent to a 70-200/2.8? This would be a 50-135/1.8 (which would be about the same size and weight as the 70-200/2.8, BTW)???
How much for a 32mm f/1.0, the true equivalent to our 50/1.4???

So, except for the body, FF is not really more expensive or bulky, for truly equivalent DoF/ISO capabilities... And I'm pretty confident that Pentax could issue a FF body roughly the size of a K20, as there is nothing preventing it (maybe SR?).

[ghelary]

Out-topic, but I just wanted to point out that this argument is moot, as truly equivalent lenses (meaning with the same Fov and DoF) have roughly the same size/weight/price, and that FF even offers some lenses that would be utterly prohibitive in APS-C...

I mean, can you imagine the price of the true equivalent to a 70-200/2.8? This would be a 50-135/1.8 (which would be about the same size and weight as the 70-200/2.8, BTW)???
How much for a 32mm f/1.0, the true equivalent to our 50/1.4???

So, except for the body, FF is not really more expensive or bulky, for truly equivalent DoF/ISO capabilities... And I'm pretty confident that Pentax could issue a FF body roughly the size of a K20, as there is nothing preventing it (maybe SR?).

I always find those arguments a little silly.
First, where did you find that a 50/1.4 on 35mm is equivalent to 32/1.0 on APSC in terms of DOF?
Secondly, DOF is much more complicated than focal length and aperture, I suggest you check TOP there and there for a better overview. So calculating equivalent aperture for the same field of view would be valid only at a given distance.
Then, at the end when shallow DOF is not enough DOF? I own a bunch of fast lenses including the FA31ltd, and I can say that I have had prints of shots wide open (wit the 31) where there wasn't enough DOF. Portraits made resonnably close. Bokeh is not the recipe for a good picture, it's what you choose to put in focus that counts. I'm not saying that 50/1.4 (or even 85/1.2 as canon did) are not usefull, but that those lenses are not that usefull all the time wide open. For movie makers, the 35mm film is roughtly equivalent to APSC, so APSC is their sweet spot here, with bigger formats (like "photo" 35mm) they may have to close aperturetoo much to achieve desired DOF.
Finally, F1.4 is F1.4 no matter what one say, 2 lenses of different focals at the same aperture will gather the same amount of light.

I find this whinning about full frame vey strange, I shoot film 35mm and 6x7, and APSC, and knowing a bit of FF, I can say that all 4 are different formats. The resolution you can get out of a last gen digital SLR is way above what could deliver film on the same area. So you can print bigger and you circle of confusion is smaller, DOF is smaller as a result (this is also an approximation)

Pentax will eventually come out with a FF when they feel it's time to switch, APSC would then let room to little improvement, FF sensors would be mature and relatively cheap, and cameras would be as small as with APSC.
FF is not the holly grail of photography, during film days, it was a compromise adopted by Leica to recycle a format made for movie cameras. The image ratio is less than perfect. And this size of sensor was that perfect, why would Canon continue to release their professional cameras in APSC-H?

[dlacouture]

I always find those arguments a little silly.
First, where did you find that a 50/1.4 on 35mm is equivalent to 32/1.0 on APSC in terms of DOF?

Simple, take a DoF calculator, choose one output format, viewing distance, 24x36, 50/1.4 and a focus distance (so the circle of confusion is taken care of).
Then, keep the same output format, viewing distance and focus distance, select APS-C, try to approximate the FoV (hence the 32mm)...
Now search for the aperture that will give the same DoF...
So, except if those DoF calculators are wrong, I don't see why my assertion is false

Then, at the end when shallow DOF is not enough DOF? I own a bunch of fast lenses including the FA31ltd, and I can say that I have had prints of shots wide open (wit the 31) where there wasn't enough DOF.

I don't say "shoot always wide open", I'm just saying that FF lenses are usually more expensive just because they are indeed better. And truly equivalent lenses are similarly priced and sized...
Take for example those two lenses (Sigma, as they have DG and DC):
- 50-200/3.5-5.6 DX : 74x101.9mm, ~500g, 210€
- 70-300/3.5-5.6 DG : 76,6x119,5 mm, 530 g, 210€

DG version is a little bigger, but in fact you'll have more glass and less DoF with it, at equivalent Focal lengths...
There are very few truly equivalent lenses, so it's quite hard to give examples for all focal lengths, but it's quite true...

Finally, F1.4 is F1.4 no matter what one say, 2 lenses of different focals at the same aperture will gather the same amount of light.

I indeed talked only about FoV and DoF, not light gathering, but given the ISO advantage of FF, this equivalence is also quite true regarding light needed to obtain similarly noise.