[texandrews]

Pentax wouldn’t go mirrorless. That would be following, and despite the whining I’m hearing, and despite the intervals between updates, Pentax has been an absolute leader in this segment. One could argue that neither The X1 nor the GFS-50S would be priced where they are but for the Pentax.

They’ll go bigger. That’s the only way they can maintain a leadership position. And they’ll keep the price under $10K.

Bigger sensor, or bigger mp, or probably both? The under $10K bit is significant, I think. And it may explain why they have not made a move yet---may not yet be possible to do a significant upgrade and keep the price down. And yes, there's no question in my mind that they put pressure on Fuji a bit, and a lot on Hassy.

Lenses that are truly sharp wide open provide flexibilities and headroom.

And are very, very expensive. I am shooting commercially now as part of my work, and have been able to avail myself of purchases that I can write-off according to U.S. tax law. But that still doesn't mean I can just go run out and snap up all the new lenses available. And I'll remind people that tax laws vary greatly around the world, and of course write offs don't apply to amateurs.

But first-class professional work was done with the older lenses, and I reckon it can still be done—by first-class professionals.

Um, yes.

A redesign of the 45-85 lens to add 1.) speed, 2.) stabilization, 3.) quiet focusing, and 4.) weather-resistance would cover a lot of ground for event pros, particularly wedding photographers. Then do it with an improved 80-160.

Would make sense, and a lot of that isn't about resolution...Although I wonder if today's FF cameras can't really do the heavy lifting in that segment. With new 45-85 and 80-160's with those features, I think you'd get a bit more weight, speaking of heavy lifting. And wedding pros as a group are in a very tight market nowadays, and there are a lot of much cheaper system options for them.

I’m hoping they don’t spend too much time at 100% on their monitors. Only amateurs can afford to play that game very much.

Well...depends on the type of pro shooting you're doing. I watched over the shoulder our in-house pro while she worked on images of one of our sculptures, and was pretty shocked at the micro surgery she was doing. But in general I agree. Certainly for none of the event work we do is there any of that sort of thing---it's much more shoot-it-right-and-get-it-out-the-door.

Those updates would primarily add convenience and flexibility. Careful photographers can still do first-class work with the older lenses. I would have to—I have rarely in my life been willing to pay what new first-class medium-format lenses cost. I have always built my kits mostly from used stuff.

My kit would be severely attenuated without my careful used purchases.

SLRs don’t solve every problem, but then neither does any other kind of camera. Right now, Pentax owns the SLR market for medium format, and that is terrain they can continue to own.

Rick “the real advantage to mirrorless is when shooting video” Denney

Yes on all points, although the 5D series shows that good video is absolutely possible with DSLR's. I think Pentax has an opening here, and this could be another reason they are waiting----they initially touted video on the Z, until it became obvious that on the usability side it left too much to be desired. Same with the K1---output is indistinguishable from a 5DmkIV, but not usability. I've used these cameras side by side, and am not a Canon fan, but the Canon is far more usable.

[photoptimist]

Rick “the real advantage to mirrorless is when shooting video” Denney

So very true!

And it's also true that “the real advantage to smaller sensors is when shooting video.”

Except to check a tick box for marketing, larger sensors are ill-suited to the technological requirements of video. Using a 50 MPix sensor to capture 8 MPix images for 4k video is a real waste.

Moreover, photographers who can afford to drop serious coin on a medium format system can afford a smaller second body selected specifically for video.

[texandrews]

So very true!

And it's also true that “the real advantage to smaller sensors is when shooting video.”

Except to check a tick box for marketing, larger sensors are ill-suited to the technological requirements of video. Using a 50 MPix sensor to capture 8 MPix images for 4k video is a real waste.

That's a valid point.

Moreover, photographers who can afford to drop serious coin on a medium format system can afford a smaller second body selected specifically for video.

mmmmm...this one's a question. That separate kit could easily run a few thousands. Almost everybody's got a limit I think...

[Andrea K]

If I'm not wrong the latest two MF lenses from Pentax are D-FA, the Pentax MF uses the 645 mount that allows a full format sensor.... do I have to write anything else?

[alvaro_garcia]

Why medium format cameras are so expensive (costing several times one good full frame)?

Even being expensive, but it's not the same buying a new FF camera every "X" years than doing so with a MF camera.

[surfar]

Why medium format cameras are so expensive (costing several times one good full frame)?

They wont be soon,the game is changing.

[Bob L]

Why medium format cameras are so expensive (costing several times one good full frame)?

Maybe that's true if the comparison is only against "a good full frame" but if you compare it with the top of the range full frame bodies then it's very close.....my Canon 1DxMkII's were around 95% of the price of the 645Z.

[surfar]

Canon 1DxMkII's were

like the Nikon D5....overpriced

[rfkiii]

Why medium format cameras are so expensive (costing several times one good full frame)?

For one thing, the market is smaller. Costs are higher to build and the potential for sales smaller. A few short years ago, prices were well north of $20,000 for most DMFs. Pentax was instrumental in getting the ball rolling downhill. Fujifilm and Hasselblad came in later and took it even further. To me, FF is constraining. I think more folks will eventually come to that same conclusion.

[rfkiii]

No revenue flows to Pentax from used lens sales. That's their motivation. The other lenses are a mix, and some DFA's and FA's. As far as allocating resources, I am pretty certain Pentax is not making those decisions based on what forum members talk about on forums. If they were, how does one explain so many apparently ignored suggestions?

---------- Post added 08-06-18 at 09:30 AM ----------



---------- Post added 08-06-18 at 09:31 AM ----------

I was referring to the legacy lenses in Pentax's new lens lineup. So, you are suggesting that Pentax does not listen to its customers, whether that be folks on a forum or Pentax's contract professionals or any type of customer? I mean, that is actually very plausible in explaining Pentax's behavior. If they are truly listening to their customers, what are they hearing more of 1.) your lens lineup is fine, 2.) your lens lineup needs updating? This assumes Pentax's medium format line will be a viable product group going forward.

[texandrews]

I was referring to the legacy lenses in Pentax's new lens lineup. So, you are suggesting that Pentax does not listen to its customers, whether that be folks on a forum or Pentax's contract professionals or any type of customer? I mean, that is actually very plausible in explaining Pentax's behavior.

I think companies in general are echo chambers, and the ones that seem to truly listen to their customers tend to stand out glaringly. Mostly I think "listening to customers" takes the form of "marketing studies", which are very problematic for reasons too many and OT to go into here.

If they are truly listening to their customers, what are they hearing more of 1.) your lens lineup is fine, 2.) your lens lineup needs updating?

I don't know. But those of us who are using legacy lenses are not necessarily saying that the current lens lineup is "fine". I certainly don't. What we are saying is that it's a terrific system and worth using even with the gaps, and that some of the criticism on the other side throws the baby out with the bath water.

This assumes Pentax's medium format line will be a viable product group going forward.

I'm thinking it will for a while. But a global economic crash starting in Turkey (Euro banks are very exposed) and China and impacting investment markets, starting a world recession, instilling consumer fears, &etc.? Then all bets are off. Sometimes events larger than ourselves come into play.

[rdenney]

like the Nikon D5....overpriced

Or simply fulfilling a set of requirements you don’t need.

Those who buy these are often working pros whose equipment has to provide a financial return on investment, not merely the enjoyment that suffice for we amateurs.

I’m happy with my Canon 5D cameras, but I have years of experience with that platform, having bought my first “full frame” DSLR 13 years ago. Yet, starting 8 years ago, I have wanted the Pentax, for several reasons: it allows more sensible use of interesting lenses I admire, it provides the resolution necessary to meet my image-quality requirements (even with legacy lenses, when carefully used), and it has really deep dynamic range. There are new full-frame cameras with that kind of sensitivity, perhaps, but seemingly through the use of camera processing that undermines the dimensionality of the image.

Rick “wary of categorical pronouncements” Denney

[texandrews]

Rick “wary of categorical pronouncements” Denney

Um, yes. Categorical pronouncements,dogmatic assertions, zealousness...it's all getting so tiresome. In the 18th century these fell under the scope of "enthusiasms", and most enlightenment thinkers were typically pretty skeptical of them. Properly so then, properly so now.

[Bob L]

like the Nikon D5....overpriced

It's like the economy class-business class-first class pricing for air travel. The increase in price doesn't correlate to the increase in service but that's how it always will be. Vendors know that people who want the best available will pay a hefty premium for the product.

[rdenney]

It's like the economy class-business class-first class pricing for air travel. The increase in price doesn't correlate to the increase in service but that's how it always will be. Vendors know that people who want the best available will pay a hefty premium for the product.

Do you suppose that’s the driving force behind, say, a working wedding or news photographer who might be making 25,000 exposures a month? they might be buying the most expensive model simply because it is designed for their duty cycle.

But if they are buying them just because they will pay for “the best”, I submit they are making a poor business decision. But often pros buy at the top of the barrel because their duty cycle means that camera has the lowest lifecycle costs.

I guess I’m unwilling to accuse them of making such a poor business decision simply because their cameras seem too pricey to me.

I could feel the same way about those who use digital backs on view cameras, but I can imagine their requirements for production efficiency as well as function.

Rick “most people in first class are frequent flyers who didn’t pay extra for the seat” Denney