[revdocjim]

I might be able understand why you or others would "wonder if" or maybe even "suspect" that the new CMOS sensor won't be able to match the older CCD sensor in certain areas, by I am somewhat baffled as to why you are already making "assumptions" before the camera has even been released... Do you have ESP?

[Dominia]

I might be able understand why you or others would "wonder if" or maybe even "suspect" that the new CMOS sensor won't be able to match the older CCD sensor in certain areas, by I am somewhat baffled as to why you are already making "assumptions" before the camera has even been released... Do you have ESP?

Only guesses. This trend in the technology of sensors now.
Sensors produced by Sony (24mp Nikon D600, Sony A99, A7 and 36mp Nikon D800) give color worse than the old camera (Fuji 5SPro, Kodak SLR, Kodak proback, Canon 1Ds Mark II).
645Z uses the sensor Sony made on the same technology that and 24, 36mp. So I assume that the color will be the same.

[revdocjim]

Only guesses. This trend in the technology of sensors now.
Sensors produced by Sony (24mp Nikon D600, Sony A99, A7 and 36mp Nikon D800) give color worse than the old camera (Fuji 5SPro, Kodak SLR, Kodak proback, Canon 1Ds Mark II).
645Z uses the sensor Sony made on the same technology that and 24, 36mp. So I assume that the color will be the same.

Maybe I'm being too picky about language, but either you are "guessing" or you are "assuming". The former suggests a lack of certainty, the latter implies the presence of significant certainty.

[Hakusan]

I assume the color scientists at Pentax have a particular color rendition they are after. I can only guess at what might influence that:

Color filter array
DR
Spectral sensitivity

The cameras could be quite close. How much of a difference and which people will prefer (we can't assume one better than another) is anyone's guess.

[texandrews]

Well, I am also curious as to what's coming. I truly hope that some (or most or all) of the supposed difference is attributable to the physical size difference, and less to the CMOS/CCD difference. Certainly part (not all...) of what I'd be looking for is the way the tonalities are rendered. I am a little hopeful, becasue I think you can see this difference between FF cameras and smaller sensored ones. Certain examples of the 645D's rendering has me thinking there is a difference from FF, and that I can even see that online. I also have to be open to the idea that this has largely been my imagination, since what I'm saying here is only based on images I've seen on the web. But it would seem odd to me that a change like this would be made while at the same time eliminating what had been touted as a key benefit of DMF photography---and this change happening across 3 different cameras/backs. So, here's hoping that between Sony and Pentax/Ricoh engineering much of this benefit has been retained, while adding the benefits of the CMOS technology.

[jon404]

@texandrews -- well, for online rendering, I doubt you'll see any quality difference between a pic from the MX-1 and one from the 645Z... given the very poor resolution of the screens on our PCs and our devices. But -- and obviously this is the whole raison d'etre -- you can make large, large prints from the 645Z -- beautiful, drop-dead gorgeous, super-sharp LARGE prints viewable without any IQ complaints from that 1-foot-away gallery distance. And if I were doing photography for a living, I'd want that 645Z -- in order to make and sell those top-quality super-large prints that the Canikon gang just can't come close to.

[redrockcoulee]

It was in Saskatchewan, Canada.

If Pentax was smart this would be the camera they would make in colours; at least in green and white.

For those who do not get it check out the Roughriders

[texandrews]

@texandrews -- well, for online rendering, I doubt you'll see any quality difference between a pic from the MX-1 and one from the 645Z... given the very poor resolution of the screens on our PCs and our devices. But -- and obviously this is the whole raison d'etre -- you can make large, large prints from the 645Z -- beautiful, drop-dead gorgeous, super-sharp LARGE prints viewable without any IQ complaints from that 1-foot-away gallery distance. And if I were doing photography for a living, I'd want that 645Z -- in order to make and sell those top-quality super-large prints that the Canikon gang just can't come close to.

Ummmm....I am of course aware---which is why I myself suggested that it could be my imagination---that screen viewing is sub-optimal in this regard. I have nevertheless noted several times some very smooth and subtle tonality gradations in certain images I have seen created with DMF cameras/backs. I am also aware of the print advantage. Finally, your last sentence, its last clause, seems more than a bit condescending. I am neither a Canon nor a Nikon shooter, but I would not disparage that equipment---certainly not as a former Oly user or current Sony and Pentax user who has been at the other end of such disparagement.

[jon404]

@texandrews -- you're right. Sorry. Like cars, there's something good to be said about any camera, isn't there?

The screen-image-quality problem is interesting. If our eyes can only perceive about 250 levels of brightness, then maybe there will never be any need to go beyond current Apple and Android display technology? What's an iPad, 326 ppi? I guess the real question is whether you can tell a difference in image quality -- say 645Z medium-format vs MX-1 -- on one of these new high-res tablets? Or on any laptop with a 225 ppi-or-better screen?

If so -- if an average person can spot a difference right away -- then medium-format gets even more attractive, as you could use those hi-res devices to show off your fashion shots, product photos, real-estate pictures... and portraits.