[Yamanobori]

The flange distance is here to stay. Pentax did not take the opportunity with the 645D and now have at least three new lenses for it, I doubt they are going to change for a mirrorless version--and just look at the K-01. It would be really expensive to run two MFD lenses lines.

[westmill]

Errrrr at least you wouldnt be looking at a mirror image lol

[eddie1960]

The flange distance is here to stay. Pentax did not take the opportunity with the 645D and now have at least three new lenses for it, I doubt they are going to change for a mirrorless version--and just look at the K-01. It would be really expensive to run two MFD lenses lines.

they ran a 645 and 6x7 line for oh 35-40years AFAIK. Mamiya ran 3 (and still run a film and a digital line in 645 and a rangefinder in 6x7), Hassy at least 2 as well

Yep the Flange distance is here to stay on the current 645 line, but I would think a mirrorless could run alongside it and take the lenses via adapter just like the 645 takes 67 lenses now
For that matter the mirrorless need not have a tone of lenses it does however ned to fill a market gap (look at a bronica RF645, there were very few lenses for that model but it was very popular - same with the fuji fixed lens series 670 and 690 - but i doubt a fixed lens 645 could be sold, a minimalist small 645 though could (1 wide, 1 normal 1 portrait tele and adapters for the 645 and 67 lenses for tripod bound work)

[Yamanobori]

they ran a 645 and 6x7 line for oh 35-40years AFAIK. Mamiya ran 3 (and still run a film and a digital line in 645 and a rangefinder in 6x7), Hassy at least 2 as well

Yep the Flange distance is here to stay on the current 645 line, but I would think a mirrorless could run alongside it and take the lenses via adapter just like the 645 takes 67 lenses now
For that matter the mirrorless need not have a tone of lenses it does however ned to fill a market gap (look at a bronica RF645, there were very few lenses for that model but it was very popular - same with the fuji fixed lens series 670 and 690 - but i doubt a fixed lens 645 could be sold, a minimalist small 645 though could (1 wide, 1 normal 1 portrait tele and adapters for the 645 and 67 lenses for tripod bound work)

But having cameras of different formats and types (SLR/rangefinder) does require different lens lines. Why have two lens lines for a 645 camera? Why make a camera series more complicated without any real benefit? Why go to the trouble of designing a new 645 lens that will not fit on all your 645 cameras? It is really expensive to make this stuff, especially for such a small market and the market conditions that allowed companies to make multiple medium-format systems does not exist anymore.

The Bronica RF645 camera did not have great sales. Also, how is Bronica doing today? The Mamiya line of cameras were really not redesigned for the MFD, they were just film cameras for MFD backs by Phase and Leaf. There have been some incremental improvements to the Mamiya 645 models (the RZ really has not changed), but they are simply doing what Pentax will do which is build on an existing platform that photographers used from the film era, except Pentax is doing it better as it redesigned the camera.

[eddie1960]

mamiya 7ii is still in production and selling despite the fact it is not available digital unlike the adapted RZ and 645(and it far from inexpensive but definitely less than a digital would be)
the RF 645 was actually the last camera to be dropped in Bronica's lineup when Tamron closed it down. unlike Pentax and mamiya and hassey they had no AF lineups and limited ai interfaces. there are still plates to adapt digital back to bronica available for the etrsi and SQai series out there. (Mamiya and Hassy had no choice but to forge on or close shop they had no alternate business model like Tamron and Pentax did)
I think Tamron didn't see a possible future in digital MF being viable any time soon and chose to devote the energies to the lens only business. Hassy and Mamiya both struggled significantly in early years of digital since tech allowing MF was not there yet (mamiya ending up partnered with Leaf and hassy getting the imacon thing happening). Pentax of course could sit on the 645D until sensors made fiscal sense
the market has evolved more now though and what made no sense a few years ago now starts looking viable again
I agree 2 full lines of lenses is not viable at first, and the big advantage of mirrorless would be getting the size down which opens up a design that hits the same markets as the RF 120 cameras. those markets are not lens intensive and in fact for the most part 3 lenses cover a huge percentages of what users would want. adapters for the existing line would cover the rest. a 645 like the current (with improved sensor) would need to stay in the lineup though

At the moment it's all a moot speculation. you need CMOS for live view/Mirrorless and there is no CMOS MF sensor. I know leica has expressed the wish for one in the next gen S2, and Ricoh people must be thinking that way too since they have already mentioned an interest in the idea of 645 mirrorless.

I think at some point someone in the market will approach this market segment. most likely though it will come from the mamiya leaf camp

[drougge]

There is a disappointing lack of hate here. I will shoulder that burden, and hate medium format mirrorless enough for all of you. So when you need hate, think of me.

I don't shoot MF for the image quality, but because I like a good finder. I also like not having so darn many frames on the film (especially since most 135 films are now only available as 36 exposure rolls), because I'm not very good at taking lots of images. (Digital kind of makes that a moot point in theory (no waiting for the film to run out before developing), but in practice I still seem to be better at not taking the useless images with film.)

[eddie1960]

There is a disappointing lack of hate here. I will shoulder that burden, and hate medium format mirrorless enough for all of you. So when you need hate, think of me.

I don't shoot MF for the image quality, but because I like a good finder. I also like not having so darn many frames on the film (especially since most 135 films are now only available as 36 exposure rolls), because I'm not very good at taking lots of images. (Digital kind of makes that a moot point in theory (no waiting for the film to run out before developing), but in practice I still seem to be better at not taking the useless images with film.)

LOL, I have to agree i take far more time usually when i am shooting MF film and waste less frames. when every frame comes out of your pocket in real time you tend to think a little more about what you are shooting. I also like the big VF on my MF (heck I like the WL as well but i usually struggle with the reversed image when i haven't shot it in a while)

[tuco]

LOL, I have to agree i take far more time usually when i am shooting MF film and waste less frames. when every frame comes out of your pocket in real time you tend to think a little more about what you are shooting. I also like the big VF on my MF (heck I like the WL as well but i usually struggle with the reversed image when i haven't shot it in a while)

Most often I have a hard time shooting up a roll of 120 film when I go out to take pictures (people pictures are a notable exception). Shoot MF film long enough and you'll learn what is worth snapping a picture of.

I don't even notice a reversed image much anymore. And I feel the reversed image can often be a benefit for composition. You can tend to see things as shapes and forms and place them in the view when things don't register in your mind as you actually see them.

[westmill]

I used the bronica ETRS with a speedgrip and a rotary veiwfinder which i loved.
I used the grond glass on the RZ67 though, but at least it had a rotating back
which I also loved. 67 or 645 not nice in vertical mode lol

[eddie1960]

Most often I have a hard time shooting up a roll of 120 film when I go out to take pictures (people pictures are a notable exception). Shoot MF film long enough and you'll learn what is worth snapping a picture of.

I don't even notice a reversed image much anymore. And I feel the reversed image can often be a benefit for composition. You can tend to see things as shapes and forms and place them in the view when things don't register in your mind as you actually see them.

Agreed on both points. My main issue with the WL is I shoot a lot with my DSLRS and then i go out with the WL finder and it takes me some time to acclimatise to it. If I am shooting static images like landscapes it actually is a benefit because i take more time composing and make less compositional errors because of it
If i haven't used it in a while going and shooting people is an exercise in missed shots until i get back into the flow of it. there is a real rhythm to shooting with a WL that is very different from shooting SLR
Just one of the reasons I'd love to see a Digital LX with interchangeable finders

[eddie1960]

I used the bronica ETRS with a speedgrip and a rotary veiwfinder which i loved.
I used the grond glass on the RZ67 though, but at least it had a rotating back
which I also loved. 67 or 645 not nice in vertical mode lol

the RF 645 is a dream in vertical mode (that's the default )

[westmill]

the RF 645 is a dream in vertical mode (that's the default )

LOL I know... i had one with all three lenses and the little flash I will be honnest here.... It was my fave bit of kit Ive ever owned ! I wish I still had it

[eddie1960]

LOL I know... i had one with all three lenses and the little flash I will be honnest here.... It was my fave bit of kit Ive ever owned ! I wish I still had it

I waffled on buying that exact total kit that belonged to Oscar Peterson of all people and missed it. it was up for $900. I've been kicking myself ever since it was in near perfect shape

they are relatively rare in Canada, but i see them every time i am in England, and a good chunk of the ebay listings i see are either japan or the uk

that type of thing is the ideal idea for digital MF if you ask me - and more than 3 lenses really isn't needed

[Smolk]

And I feel the reversed image can often be a benefit for composition.

That is precisely what I expect, and part of what attracts me to it. Haven't had the experience yet.
When my funds are replenished, one day, I'll try either a Rolleiflex or a P67.

[NotaxPen]

the RF 645 is a dream in vertical mode (that's the default )

Since nearly all my photos are vertical, and since camera design is no longer limited by the direction of film travel, I'm holding out for the MF digital camera designed specifically for Portrait Photographers. BTW, my Fuji 645 rangefinder shoots vertical without having to turn the camera on it's side. I would love a digital version with a slightly longer lens.
OK, I know the photographic world is completely dominated by landscape shooters, but I can dream can't I?