[JPT]

A lot of Japanese landscape photographers are still using MF Pentax cameras and for some reason not that many have moved up to the 645D. Maybe they have no interest in digital at all. Maybe the 645D was too expensive. Or maybe they did not like the crop factor. If Ricoh is smart, they will have done their market research and will position the next 645D better.

It's interesting that when I say I use a Pentax to people in Japan, a lot or people don't automatically think of K-mount - they assume I am using a 645 camera. So I think that 645 is an important part of Pentax's identity in Japan. Another company with a MF heritage is Fujifilm. I wonder whether they will enter this area in 2014.

Another thought is that with FF cameras becoming affordable, can some portion of pro photographers be tempted to move to MF to differentiate themselves? I'm thinking of this like a bell curve shifting. A small shift to larger sensors could make a big difference to MF sales.

[H. Sapiens]

It's not as easy as one could think. Hasselblad are currently struggling to finalise their H5D-50c event though they "just" have to replace the 50Mpix CCD sensor in their H5D-50 by a 50Mpix CMOS one.

Yeah, it can be hard to decide on the right combination of wood and leather when all the internals are wired and ready to go.

[dansamy]

A lot of Japanese landscape photographers are still using MF Pentax cameras and for some reason not that many have moved up to the 645D. Maybe they have no interest in digital at all. Maybe the 645D was too expensive. Or maybe they did not like the crop factor. If Ricoh is smart, they will have done their market research and will position the next 645D better.

It's interesting that when I say I use a Pentax to people in Japan, a lot or people don't automatically think of K-mount - they assume I am using a 645 camera. So I think that 645 is an important part of Pentax's identity in Japan. Another company with a MF heritage is Fujifilm. I wonder whether they will enter this area in 2014.

Another thought is that with FF cameras becoming affordable, can some portion of pro photographers be tempted to move to MF to differentiate themselves? I'm thinking of this like a bell curve shifting. A small shift to larger sensors could make a big difference to MF sales.

I don't think that many people find $10k to be affordable for a camera. Perhaps serious pros that make a "good living" from commercial photography might. But "starving artists", hobby enthusiasts & mom/dadtographers probably don't.

[Adam G]

So how many here would prefer a 645D II for about $10,000 or a full frame 36mp Pentax DSLR for about $2,300 with K mount to use with their full frame PK mount lenses ?

Oh, begone. We're talking about the 645DII here.

Sick of this.

[falconeye]

If the size of the sensor is about the same as in the current Hasselblad H5D-50 (36.7 x 49.1), the pixel density will be very close to the pixel density of a 24mp FF sensor, so the sensor could be expected to have similar low light capabilities to the D600. This would make the 645D mk2 incredibly good in low light!

This isn't true.

Let me assume (for the sake of simplicity) a 35mm-equivalent crop factor of 0.70 for the Hasselblad or 645DmkII.

Low light capabilities are a direct function of lens diameter in mm, not sensor size. Number of pixels or pixel size plays no role here, DxO explains why in their Insight section.

So, in order to beat, e.g., a 55mm F/1.4 lens low light capabilities with a 645DmkII, you would need a 80mm F/2 lens. Such lens exists and both cameras would perform on par.

The real benefit of medium format is that the 80mm F/2 would be sharper (fully open) than the 55mm F/1.4, a necessary prerequisite for a 40MP+ camera. However, more recently the Zeiss Otus/D800E are achieving the same (at a similiar price point).

My point: Low light capabilities isn't the strong point of medium format. Ultimate resolution is.

[Rondec]

So how many here would prefer a 645D II for about $10,000 or a full frame 36mp Pentax DSLR for about $2,300 with K mount to use with their full frame PK mount lenses ?

Why are you so concerned with how other people spend their money? We aren't worried if you spend money on new gadgets/phones/camcorders, even if we wouldn't have purchased the same things.

There is no perfect camera. The larger the sensor, the higher the megapixels, the slower the frame rate.

Having a 645D MK II does not preclude Pentax releasing a full frame camera. It just means that Pentax is going to continue to commit to the 645D line up -- not unexpected in my opinion.

[Pioneer]

I much prefer the the CCD sensor color output. It may not be as noise free at high ISO, but it is certainly a much richer color and I love that. I still use my old ist DS for that very reason.

Once Pentax comes out with the new 645D I'll start shopping for an older one.

[Pioneer]

A lot of Japanese landscape photographers are still using MF Pentax cameras and for some reason not that many have moved up to the 645D. Maybe they have no interest in digital at all. Maybe the 645D was too expensive. Or maybe they did not like the crop factor. If Ricoh is smart, they will have done their market research and will position the next 645D better.

It's interesting that when I say I use a Pentax to people in Japan, a lot or people don't automatically think of K-mount - they assume I am using a 645 camera. So I think that 645 is an important part of Pentax's identity in Japan. Another company with a MF heritage is Fujifilm. I wonder whether they will enter this area in 2014.

Another thought is that with FF cameras becoming affordable, can some portion of pro photographers be tempted to move to MF to differentiate themselves? I'm thinking of this like a bell curve shifting. A small shift to larger sensors could make a big difference to MF sales.

This is certainly a very interesting observation. It would certainly be interesting to know why the Japanese photographers have not made the move. It could be a combination of factors but I am sure that a big one is that it is very difficult to fault a 645 chrome. Once you have seen one then digital output doesn't really capture your imagination in the same way. For myself this is the only camera I own that still gets a steady diet of Fuji slide film, and I am happy to pay the price.

[gazonk]

This isn't true.

Sorry, I was really thinking of "similar high iso noise when viewed at 100%" when I wrote "similar low light performance".

My point: Low light capabilities isn't the strong point of medium format. Ultimate resolution is.

My point is that maybe you can get both.

[boriscleto]

I don't think that many people find $10k to be affordable for a camera.

Until you compare it to other digital MF cameras. The current H5D-50 is $27,000. The H5D-40 is $18,000. And then you have to have a lens.

A local camera store in Syracuse has been trying to get rid of a 28MP Mamiya demo unit for years, they still want $11,000 for it.

[stevebrot]

Indeed they do, and it's almost certain that it comes this year.

Unless, of course, it doesn't.

Things move more slowly in the medium format world. Remember that the 645D itself was a rumor for many years before it was finally released.


Steve

[monochrome]

Unless, of course, it doesn't.

Things move more slowly in the medium format world. Remember that the 645D itself was a rumor for many years before it was finally released.


Steve

IIRC, the original business / production plan called for a total production of 10,000 units over the product life.

[falconeye]

I much prefer the the CCD sensor color output.

I hear this often enough to reply. First, let me cite this post:

There's no such thing as "CMOS color" or "CCD color". CMOS and CCD both use silicon photodiodes, and they have identical monochrome responses. The "color" comes from the organic filters that are screened onto the naturally monochrome chip, and those are the same regardless of whether the chip is CCD or CMOS.
There are differences in the organic filters used by different manufacturers, but those different filters could be applied just as easily to either a CCD or CMOS sensor.
A sensor whose red, green, and blue sensitivity curves have about the same amount of overlap as those of a human eye will produce "natural" colors, in other words, ones that can be processed (by the camera's computer, or by an external raw processing program) into something that looks a lot like what the eye sees.
A sensor whose red, green, and blue curves don't overlap as much as the eye's curves produces unnaturally exaggerated colors, but that effect can be substantially reduced in post processing. There's no real reason today to make such a sensor, but some older cameras, whether CMOS or CCD, had that kind of curve. It's probably what you like.
A sensor with curves that have more overlap than the eye reduces color separation, and gains increased sensitivity (high ISO and shadow detail). That's a modern trend, because so many photographers (and reviewers) talk up the high ISO.

[source: There's no such thing as "CMOS color" or "CCD color": Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review ]
(I endorse the quoted content)

Second, let me refer to DxO's color analysis based on the raw output of K-5 and 645D (relaesed about the same moment in time):

K-5

Sensitivity metamerism index ISO 17321: 78

White balance scales:
R 2.24
G 1
B 1.64

Color matrix as defined in ISO standard 17321:
R 1.82 -0.73 -0.09
G -0.15 1.54 -0.39
B 0.06 -0.46 1.4

645D

Sensitivity metamerism index ISO 17321: 75

White balance scales:
R 2.18
G 1
B 1.2

Color matrix as defined in ISO standard 17321:
R 1.99 -0.88 -0.11
G -0.19 1.57 -0.38
B 0.11 -0.75 1.64

Both color responses are extremely similiar, with similiar metamerism index just close of 80 (anything above 80 is said to be indistinguishable from natural true colors). If anything, the 645D has a tad stronger red and blue diagonal color matrix elements (less overlap) which may lead to a bit more brilliat than natural colors if not corrected for by the raw converter profile.

Professionals (esp. studio product and fashion shooters) use inexpensive tools like X-Rite's ColorChecker Passport to calibrate their camera. After doing so, the DxO analysis tells us that no visible differences in color rendition should remain (maybe with one exception, red channel clipping for overexposed images which is 3% stronger with the K-5).

IMHO, there is no such thing as "CCD colors".

[stevebrot]

IIRC, the original business / production plan called for a total production of 10,000 units over the product life.

Which might explain why the dang thing is so expensive!


Steve

[Rondec]

I hear this often enough to reply. First, let me cite this post:
[source: There's no such thing as "CMOS color" or "CCD color": Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review ]
(I endorse the quoted content)

Second, let me refer to DxO's color analysis based on the raw output of K-5 and 645D (relaesed about the same moment in time):

K-5
645D
Both color responses are extremely similiar, with similiar metamerism index just close of 80 (anything above 80 is said to be indistinguishable from natural true colors). If anything, the 645D has a tad stronger red and blue diagonal color matrix elements (less overlap) which may lead to a bit more brilliat than natural colors if not corrected for by the raw converter profile.

Professionals (esp. studio product and fashion shooters) use inexpensive tools like X-Rite's ColorChecker Passport to calibrate their camera. After doing so, the DxO analysis tells us that no visible differences in color rendition should remain (maybe with one exception, red channel clipping for overexposed images which is 3% stronger with the K-5).

IMHO, there is no such thing as "CCD colors".

I thought some of this CCD versus CMOS color thing came from the CMOS in the K7/K20, which didn't render colors the same as preceding cameras, like the K10 or, like the K5 either. The 645D does seem to do a better job with reds, for whatever reason, even as compared to cameras like the D800.