[RonHendriks1966]

Yes. That the next 645 Digital will be FF and have 80-100mp.....

Good idea I think. It would be great if they just could make it out of the wafer of K-5 (no idea if such a big sensor would work) but then it has solid 100 mp.

[jackinkc]

It's not all about the numbers though, but also to do with the size of the sensor. Plenty of rumours about a higher spec Canon 5D mk III and yet Canon haven't made any announcements regarding it. Besides which if it was just about the number of pixels you would never have medium format in the first place.

This is true. In both film and digital photography, size does matter.

As for Nikon sensors, keep your eyes on Sony; Nikon gets their sensors from that company.

[Yamanobori]

Yes. That the next 645 Digital will be FF and have 80-100mp.....

And a steal at $25,000...

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

... It's the finest camera in the world for what it's good at. Pentax can't say that about any other product they have ever made....

You don't know much Pentax history.

[chicagonature]

This is theoretical discussion. It doesn't matter how valid the rumors are. Plus, how remarkable would it really be to have a 36MP sensor on a 35mm camera? That's the same pixel density as a 60MP version of the 645D (33x44mm sensor).

I guess what I'm saying is, who is buying the 645D right now? And, how many customers would decide to buy a 36MP version 35mm camera, instead?

Canon 5D II is second rate. It's not in the same league as the Nikon D3x at 24MP and the phantom new version would be on that same order of quality, especially at a rumored price of $3,900. Plus, since the Nikon D3x, Sony and Nikon have had a lot of time to make advances in sensor technology.

Maybe the pixels wouldn't be as good, but if "necessity is the mother of invention," the the 35mm manufacturers have the edge because they need to be more resourceful. For instance, 35mm lens are super sharp because they have to be. They innovate with the low noise/high ISOs because they have to. When we think of a great medium format camera we all want the 35mm innovations. 35mm sensors are getting much, much better all the time because of the special challenges of the smaller sensor size.

If you don't have to get better, you won't. That's human nature. Medium format manufacturers aren't being pressed because there's enough real estate on the sensors and they can be lazy. To prove the point, you'd think that with all that extra space that they could have made the 645D with better noise characteristics than the 35mm cameras. But, it's pretty bad in comparison. Why? No necessity, in their minds.

I'm asking to tell me who would pay $10K for the 645D with a limited and very expensive line of new lenses if there's a $4K option available that would provide the convenience of 35mm with many, many lenses (T/S, telephoto, etc.) at a quality that would certainly not be 2.5 times less.

If that day comes, I worry for the future of the Pentax digital medium format.

I'd like to be proven wrong.

[RonHendriks1966]

I'm asking to tell me who would pay $10K for the 645D with a limited and very expensive line of new lenses if there's a $4K option available that would provide the convenience of 35mm with many, many lenses (T/S, telephoto, etc.) at a quality that would certainly not be 2.5 times less.

Don't forget the power that a Hasselblad has for impressing a customer. Not the creative director, but the guy from the office who descides about budgets.

There must be a lot to improve on 645D. There is even room for some cooling on the sensor, wich would make image quality better I guess.

[itshimitis]

This is theoretical discussion. It doesn't matter how valid the rumors are. Plus, how remarkable would it really be to have a 36MP sensor on a 35mm camera? That's the same pixel density as a 60MP version of the 645D (33x44mm sensor).

I guess what I'm saying is, who is buying the 645D right now? And, how many customers would decide to buy a 36MP version 35mm camera, instead?

Canon 5D II is second rate. It's not in the same league as the Nikon D3x at 24MP and the phantom new version would be on that same order of quality, especially at a rumored price of $3,900. Plus, since the Nikon D3x, Sony and Nikon have had a lot of time to make advances in sensor technology.

Maybe the pixels wouldn't be as good, but if "necessity is the mother of invention," the the 35mm manufacturers have the edge because they need to be more resourceful. For instance, 35mm lens are super sharp because they have to be. They innovate with the low noise/high ISOs because they have to. When we think of a great medium format camera we all want the 35mm innovations. 35mm sensors are getting much, much better all the time because of the special challenges of the smaller sensor size.

If you don't have to get better, you won't. That's human nature. Medium format manufacturers aren't being pressed because there's enough real estate on the sensors and they can be lazy. To prove the point, you'd think that with all that extra space that they could have made the 645D with better noise characteristics than the 35mm cameras. But, it's pretty bad in comparison. Why? No necessity, in their minds.

I'm asking to tell me who would pay $10K for the 645D with a limited and very expensive line of new lenses if there's a $4K option available that would provide the convenience of 35mm with many, many lenses (T/S, telephoto, etc.) at a quality that would certainly not be 2.5 times less.

If that day comes, I worry for the future of the Pentax digital medium format.

I'd like to be proven wrong.

Sorry but this is nonsense. It's not a realistic answer to the OP. whether there is a theoretic possibility of a 36mp sensor on a 35mm sensor is not a factor unless the rumours turn out to be true. Even if they were it doesn't make it almost equal. You are comparing apples with pears. The sensor size is different. The aspect ratio is different. You're asking questions from a consumer point of view. Pentax 645D is not a consumer camera. It's not all about numbers. Leave that for Nokia, Sony ericcson etc to fight out. In DSLR world number of pixels is less important now. Otherwise the Nikon 1 would have at least 16mp.

You may be a Nikon fanboy, but the Canon 5D mk ii is not second rate. It's used by many professionals. It's due an upgrade but so are other cameras.

As has been stated in this thread there are plenty of lenses for the 645D many of them like the 75 and 120 are first rate. I reiterate: nikon won't be releasing a 36mp camera at under $4k. There's no marketing sense to that. Sure it's theoretically possible. It's theoretically possible for me to walk on the moon. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it

---

Last edited by itshimitis; 12-11-2011 at 04:05 AM.

[Yamanobori]

This is theoretical discussion. It doesn't matter how valid the rumors are. Plus, how remarkable would it really be to have a 36MP sensor on a 35mm camera? That's the same pixel density as a 60MP version of the 645D (33x44mm sensor).

Who has made a 33x44 60MP sensor? All of the 645 lenses including the new ones cover the film 6x4.5 format. There is no reason Pentax cannot go to a larger chip. The 645D chip is not new, there are other backs/cameras that use it. Pentax though has been the one to make it work at ISO 1600.

I guess what I'm saying is, who is buying the 645D right now? And, how many customers would decide to buy a 36MP version 35mm camera, instead?

You would need to collect data. Just because it make no sense to you, does not actually mean anything. Medium format digital has always been a small part of the market. These are not meant to be a popular/consumer camera.

Canon 5D II is second rate. It's not in the same league as the Nikon D3x at 24MP and the phantom new version would be on that same order of quality, especially at a rumored price of $3,900. Plus, since the Nikon D3x, Sony and Nikon have had a lot of time to make advances in sensor technology.

Maybe the pixels wouldn't be as good, but if "necessity is the mother of invention," the the 35mm manufacturers have the edge because they need to be more resourceful. For instance, 35mm lens are super sharp because they have to be. They innovate with the low noise/high ISOs because they have to. When we think of a great medium format camera we all want the 35mm innovations. 35mm sensors are getting much, much better all the time because of the special challenges of the smaller sensor size.

Perhaps 35mm has reached its limit. Have you thought why Canon's latest flagship model, X, is only 18MP. Besides, you are overemphasizing pixel resolution on the image. Format size is far more significant.

If you don't have to get better, you won't. That's human nature. Medium format manufacturers aren't being pressed because there's enough real estate on the sensors and they can be lazy. To prove the point, you'd think that with all that extra space that they could have made the 645D with better noise characteristics than the 35mm cameras. But, it's pretty bad in comparison. Why? No necessity, in their minds.

So what is Phases IQ series back? The Pentax 645D? Hasselblad's True Focus? The new Scheider and Rodenstock lens designs? The Leica S2. You are confusing the rate of releases with innovation. Medium-foramt cameras cannot be redesigned ever 6 months, the business model just does not work. But most photographers, those that take pictures rather than collect technology, understand the bells and whistles do make any real difference.

Why would the sensor have less noise that other state-of-the-art cameras? Technology's improvement over noise is also overstated and photography is light dependent. And Pentax certainly made the Kodak sensor work better in this camera than other manufactures that use it and you cannot change the way the sensor works. And do you know what noise looks like in a sensor with that pixel resolution--pixel peeping does not tell you anything.

I'm asking to tell me who would pay $10K for the 645D with a limited and very expensive line of new lenses if there's a $4K option available that would provide the convenience of 35mm with many, many lenses (T/S, telephoto, etc.) at a quality that would certainly not be 2.5 times less.

If that day comes, I worry for the future of the Pentax digital medium format.

I'd like to be proven wrong.

I bought a 645D. And there is not going to be a 35mm option that will make me regret it. But then photography is my profession and I have had a great deal of experience with all kinds of camera systems--and industry marketing. I know you cannot imitate format size by just adding pixels. Phase is still selling their 22MP camera kits. Medium-format digital will be fine without the majority of photographers, just as it always has.

My advise would be to forget about the 645D. Buy the new 35mm camera, whatever that might be--that would be a better match for you.

[CDW]

Ditto what Yamanobori said! I shoot primarily with the 645D. I'm far more pleased with the results it delivers than I have been with any other digital camera I've owned, including the 5D2. Too many DSLR owners have fallen into the upgrade trap and the business model Canon and Nikon have created that parallels the computer market, enticing owners to continually upgrade based on improved specs. How many of us upgraded our film bodies every 12-18 months? The 645D arguably has ergonomics that are among the best of any camera body available. The image quality is stunning. A three or four frame stitch delivers an image that 4x5 film rarely can match( assuming movements capability is not required). My 645D will be with me for a long time and even if Pentax should come out with an updated 60-80 meg version, I will have no compelling reason to update. A 30+ meg Nikon or Canon will be of absolutely no interest to me.

[jackinkc]

Ditto what Yamanobori

Yamanobori was pretty comprehensive in his reply and you, CDW, also added some interesting thinking.

Many statements made in earlier posts seem to come from persons who do not own, and have never used, a Pentax 645D - or any other medium format camera. All arguments, however well reasoned, seem to be based on somebody else's printed statements and not on personal experience.

One of the weakest arguments iI see is that a smaller format camera is equal to a larger format. This has never been true, so far as I know. An APS sensor may produce outstanding images, but a full frame, 24.5 MP camera can do superior work, assuming top quality lenses in each case. I find this true when I compare my 645D to my FF images.

Face it, the 645D is a professional camera, intended for pros and advanced photographers, both of whom are critical users.

[chicagonature]

Still, I ask, who is going to buy or upgrade into the 645D? There are four groups, from what I can figure:
1) 35mm photographers who want more pixels or better image quality
2) Existing medium format film users
3) Those who are using medium format digital already
4) Large format film shooters who are using medium format backs or still shooting film

For each user above:
1) 35mm folks would have a choice between a more a 36MP camera and the 645D, especially if the 35mm competitor is a lot cheap. Hence, the market for the 645D is reduced. Certainly, it's not going to go up.
2) Medium format film users who want enough resolution to jump in probably want a reasonable price, like landscape shooter who are making a fraction of the income as commercial shooter. A 36MP 35mm camera will probably achieve comparable quality as the medium format film and will be happy if the price is right. If they were waiting because of the price, then 35mm at a good price will be very enticing and, hence, the market for the 645D will again suffer. Plus, if you crop a 36MP camera to the .75 aspect ratio as the 645D, you end up with 32MP, not a huge loss. In fact, the D3 and D3x have the ability allow you to shoot in the 4x5 aspect ratio if you'd like.
3) Which existing digital medium format owners from the following companies will ever switch to Pentax?: Hasselblad (no way), Leica (no way), Phase users (no way), Mamiya (possibly). Money is not a factor to any of those folks and they are very loyal to their brands, most of which offer many, many lenses that are made specifically for digital and who already have extensive track records in digital. Granted, Leica is lacking in lenses, but it's Leica and they have tremendous brand loyalty.
4) Large format film shooters who've already switched to medium cameras or backs are unlikely to switch. Too much invested already. If they haven't switched yet, then the 645D might be a decent choice. But, with no tilt/shift ability, I wonder. Plus, that market is the smallest of all.

Professional photographers are included in the 4 classes above.

Everybody is a consumer and they always consider the trade-offs between image quality and their wallets, except for those who have money to burn. When 35mm digital hit 8MP, many professional portrait studios dumped their medium format film cameras for them, not for expensive medium format systems. I've seen it and I have friends in that industry who confirmed it. When another friend's church hired a studio to do their membership directory, he told me that they were using Nikon D200 cameras. And that was last year, 2 years after the D300 came out. These are professionals who don't seem to care about a drop in image quality. And there are A LOT of studios out there. They're not upgrading to medium format digital anytime soon. They're already happy with their results.

Finally, it doesn't matter how good something is if people don't have confidence in the brand. Pentax is new to medium format digital and they toyed with people for 3 years, which doesn't give one much confidence. Right now, they're doing fine. But, it's the future that I'm talking about.

I am one of those consumers and a professional photographer who shoots landscapes on film and I want to go digital in a meaningful way. But, I am in a wait-and-see mode, though I can't wait much longer. Probably in May, I'll make up my mind. I am one of those people who is wondering if buying a 36MP 35mm camera would hold me over for a couple of years. Certainly a 36MP 35mm camera will have very good image quality when compared to MF film. And, it'll only take 2 years to pay for itself if the rumored price is true (no film and scanning costs). Those 2 years would give me time to see where Pentax medium format ends up and where industry technology is heading. If they come out with a new 645DII camera by that time with resolution, image quality, and low noise capability, then I could jump in and be happy for a very long time afterwards.

I would have jumped in much earlier if Pentax would have had its act together. They claimed to have designed the 645D specifically for landscape photography, yet a year later you still can't get a wide enough landscape photography lens with a U.S. warranty (the 25mm). (The 35mm lens is not very wide after the crop factor, especially for the work I do.)

Thanks for considering these ideas.

[Yamanobori]

Still, I ask, who is going to buy or upgrade into the 645D? There are four groups, from what I can figure:
1) 35mm photographers who want more pixels or better image quality
2) Existing medium format film users
3) Those who are using medium format digital already
4) Large format film shooters who are using medium format backs or still shooting film

For each user above:
1) 35mm folks would have a choice between a more a 36MP camera and the 645D, especially if the 35mm competitor is a lot cheap. Hence, the market for the 645D is reduced. Certainly, it's not going to go up.
2) Medium format film users who want enough resolution to jump in probably want a reasonable price, like landscape shooter who are making a fraction of the income as commercial shooter. A 36MP 35mm camera will probably achieve comparable quality as the medium format film and will be happy if the price is right. If they were waiting because of the price, then 35mm at a good price will be very enticing and, hence, the market for the 645D will again suffer. Plus, if you crop a 36MP camera to the .75 aspect ratio as the 645D, you end up with 32MP, not a huge loss. In fact, the D3 and D3x have the ability allow you to shoot in the 4x5 aspect ratio if you'd like.
3) Which existing digital medium format owners from the following companies will ever switch to Pentax?: Hasselblad (no way), Leica (no way), Phase users (no way), Mamiya (possibly). Money is not a factor to any of those folks and they are very loyal to their brands, most of which offer many, many lenses that are made specifically for digital and who already have extensive track records in digital. Granted, Leica is lacking in lenses, but it's Leica and they have tremendous brand loyalty.
4) Large format film shooters who've already switched to medium cameras or backs are unlikely to switch. Too much invested already. If they haven't switched yet, then the 645D might be a decent choice. But, with no tilt/shift ability, I wonder. Plus, that market is the smallest of all.

Professional photographers are included in the 4 classes above.

Everybody is a consumer and they always consider the trade-offs between image quality and their wallets, except for those who have money to burn. When 35mm digital hit 8MP, many professional portrait studios dumped their medium format film cameras for them, not for expensive medium format systems. I've seen it and I have friends in that industry who confirmed it. When another friend's church hired a studio to do their membership directory, he told me that they were using Nikon D200 cameras. And that was last year, 2 years after the D300 came out. These are professionals who don't seem to care about a drop in image quality. And there are A LOT of studios out there. They're not upgrading to medium format digital anytime soon. They're already happy with their results.

Finally, it doesn't matter how good something is if people don't have confidence in the brand. Pentax is new to medium format digital and they toyed with people for 3 years, which doesn't give one much confidence. Right now, they're doing fine. But, it's the future that I'm talking about.

I am one of those consumers and a professional photographer who shoots landscapes on film and I want to go digital in a meaningful way. But, I am in a wait-and-see mode, though I can't wait much longer. Probably in May, I'll make up my mind. I am one of those people who is wondering if buying a 36MP 35mm camera would hold me over for a couple of years. Certainly a 36MP 35mm camera will have very good image quality when compared to MF film. And, it'll only take 2 years to pay for itself if the rumored price is true (no film and scanning costs). Those 2 years would give me time to see where Pentax medium format ends up and where industry technology is heading. If they come out with a new 645DII camera by that time with resolution, image quality, and low noise capability, then I could jump in and be happy for a very long time afterwards.

I would have jumped in much earlier if Pentax would have had its act together. They claimed to have designed the 645D specifically for landscape photography, yet a year later you still can't get a wide enough landscape photography lens with a U.S. warranty (the 25mm). (The 35mm lens is not very wide after the crop factor, especially for the work I do.)

Thanks for considering these ideas.

I work too much in the sciences. Please show data for your assertions? If you can't show any, then let us simply deal with your issue.

So, you need a lens wider than 25mm--or 19mm on a 35mm? End of discussion. The 645D is not for you. The only medium-format option in that case will be far more expensive. Then get a 35mm camera and a lens wider than 19mm.

Naturally, I would like to know what MF film camera you are using that has a wider angle of view than what you can get with a 645D and 25mm.

[CDW]

Chicagonature, if you regularly need an ultrawide for landscape, then chances are very good that stitched frames with the 645 35mm lens will work well for you. In that type of situation it has worked very well for myself as well as two other photographers I know who shoot the 645D. One friend almost purchased the 25mm then decided he was using the 55mm far more often, and already owing the 35mm, he then decided the 25mm unnecessary.

I might add that for the cost of the 645 25mm, one could purchase a FF Canon or Nikon and a wide lens, for situations where an ultrawide is required. There is an additional category of buyer for the 645D which includes myself. And that is the one of a previous Pentax MF owner who still owns a large number of lenses from film days and now uses them with the 645D. It's easy to forget that in terms of MF sales, Pentax likely sold more MF film bodies worldwide to landscape photographers than either Hasselblad or Mamiya simply because of pricing and mass production (by MF standards) of lenses and bodies. There are huge numbers of excellent Pentax 645 lenses available on the used market today. The particular lenses such as the 45mm prime, that are considered not so great, are pretty well known at this point. The 35, 55, 75, 120 macro and 200mm, are all pretty well established as excellent and fully up to the task, and readily available from both private sources and reputable used dealers such as KEH, Adorama and B&H Photo.

As for the present 645D and its 41 meg sensor, the IQ and noise performance are as good or better, than any other MF brand using that same sensor. But if you need every T crossed and every I dotted, and you easily have buyer's remorse, then spend 10-20K more and buy a Hasselblad or Mamiya system. If FF Canons and Nikons are the Fords and Chevrolets of the camera world, then the Pentax 645D is a BMW, and you may be looking for a Ferrari.

[phonoline]

I come from Nikon. The D700 is my workhorse. I bought the 645D because of the 40MP and the fact that I proudly own many many great 67 lenses. There were times, I confess, that I partly regretted the purchase of the 645D as it never is fast enough - I was/still am very much used to the high speed of my D700 and its better handling in the studio and on weddings. BUT: also coming from the 67II which I still regularly use for b&w shooting, I have started to give speed a break on the 645D - the image quality of it is outstanding and more important to me. Its lenses are mostly phantastic, I can live with 1/125s in the studio.

[itshimitis]

Still, I ask, who is going to buy or upgrade into the 645D? There are four groups, from what I can figure:
1) 35mm photographers who want more pixels or better image quality
2) Existing medium format film users
3) Those who are using medium format digital already
4) Large format film shooters who are using medium format backs or still shooting film

For each user above:
1) 35mm folks would have a choice between a more a 36MP camera and the 645D, especially if the 35mm competitor is a lot cheap. Hence, the market for the 645D is reduced. Certainly, it's not going to go up.
2) Medium format film users who want enough resolution to jump in probably want a reasonable price, like landscape shooter who are making a fraction of the income as commercial shooter. A 36MP 35mm camera will probably achieve comparable quality as the medium format film and will be happy if the price is right. If they were waiting because of the price, then 35mm at a good price will be very enticing and, hence, the market for the 645D will again suffer. Plus, if you crop a 36MP camera to the .75 aspect ratio as the 645D, you end up with 32MP, not a huge loss. In fact, the D3 and D3x have the ability allow you to shoot in the 4x5 aspect ratio if you'd like.
3) Which existing digital medium format owners from the following companies will ever switch to Pentax?: Hasselblad (no way), Leica (no way), Phase users (no way), Mamiya (possibly). Money is not a factor to any of those folks and they are very loyal to their brands, most of which offer many, many lenses that are made specifically for digital and who already have extensive track records in digital. Granted, Leica is lacking in lenses, but it's Leica and they have tremendous brand loyalty.
4) Large format film shooters who've already switched to medium cameras or backs are unlikely to switch. Too much invested already. If they haven't switched yet, then the 645D might be a decent choice. But, with no tilt/shift ability, I wonder. Plus, that market is the smallest of all.

Professional photographers are included in the 4 classes above.

Everybody is a consumer and they always consider the trade-offs between image quality and their wallets, except for those who have money to burn. When 35mm digital hit 8MP, many professional portrait studios dumped their medium format film cameras for them, not for expensive medium format systems. I've seen it and I have friends in that industry who confirmed it. When another friend's church hired a studio to do their membership directory, he told me that they were using Nikon D200 cameras. And that was last year, 2 years after the D300 came out. These are professionals who don't seem to care about a drop in image quality. And there are A LOT of studios out there. They're not upgrading to medium format digital anytime soon. They're already happy with their results.

Finally, it doesn't matter how good something is if people don't have confidence in the brand. Pentax is new to medium format digital and they toyed with people for 3 years, which doesn't give one much confidence. Right now, they're doing fine. But, it's the future that I'm talking about.

I am one of those consumers and a professional photographer who shoots landscapes on film and I want to go digital in a meaningful way. But, I am in a wait-and-see mode, though I can't wait much longer. Probably in May, I'll make up my mind. I am one of those people who is wondering if buying a 36MP 35mm camera would hold me over for a couple of years. Certainly a 36MP 35mm camera will have very good image quality when compared to MF film. And, it'll only take 2 years to pay for itself if the rumored price is true (no film and scanning costs). Those 2 years would give me time to see where Pentax medium format ends up and where industry technology is heading. If they come out with a new 645DII camera by that time with resolution, image quality, and low noise capability, then I could jump in and be happy for a very long time afterwards.

I would have jumped in much earlier if Pentax would have had its act together. They claimed to have designed the 645D specifically for landscape photography, yet a year later you still can't get a wide enough landscape photography lens with a U.S. warranty (the 25mm). (The 35mm lens is not very wide after the crop factor, especially for the work I do.)

Thanks for considering these ideas.

You carry on living in cloud cuckoo land. The chances of the D800 being 36mp are zero to minus in my view. I made the jump from 35mm to MF and now have the 645n for film MF. The difference is not just in number of pixels as we have stated each time. Will there one day be a 36 mp 35mm sensor? Probably. But not for a few years. Canon are rumoured to be looking at a 32mp sensor. I don't think that Nikon will try and match this let alone beat it, going by their past marketing.

Digital I have the Pentax 645d canon 5d mk 1 and II and also the 7D. I have used the 5dII to go wider with a Sigma 12-24 and Canon 14 and 16-35L lenses. But 645D comes with me every trip and is also my first choice. I shoot predominantly landscape. I have lots of L glass inc 14, 16-35II 70-200 and 28-300. I'm still happier with the shots from my 645D. If I want to go wider I can and have stitched shots. The detail is astounding especially when I use the sharpest lenses the 75 and 120 macro.