Originally posted by serothis I doubt that a full frame pentax 645z II would cause much if any grief for hasselblad or phase one. People/companies buying those systems are in the world of hyper specialized.
I think it might! Because it'll be more affordable! Affordable = more sales. Why spend 17k on a crop format medium format when you can get a full frame for almost the same price! How about that?
---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 02:41 AM ----------
Originally posted by RobA_Oz Let me be clear when I referred to Hasselblad that I was talking about the X1D, which, like the Fujifilm GFX50, is price competitive with the 645Z. The higher priced Hasselblad bodies, like the Phase One bodies, are in a completely different price range.
Different price range but same sensor!
---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 02:57 AM ----------
Originally posted by SylvainB Pixelshift exists already on large Hasselblad H family backs (called MS for multishot, so we know it is possible to do it). If Pentax was to introduce this feature on a 645 model, that would be a big problem for Hasselblad H MS product line.
Regarding sensor size, Pentax could have access to the current 100MP non BSI 54x40mm sensor probably at discounted price, because it is replaced now by the 150MP BSI one. But would Sony be interested in continuing the production ? And would people be interested in a potential 645 100MP full format but "old tech" vs mirrorless offers with small 100MP BSI up-to-date sensors ? I don't think the price would be much different between the 2 options, and in any case more expensive than actual offers.
It is quite difficult to guess what Pentax will do, and if they will continue the 645 line at all. All we kind of know is that Pentax signed a development agreement with Sony regarding 54x40mm sensors some time ago, so they have studied the question and probably built some prototypes just to see. That ended without serial product so far.
I once read an article regarding Sony Sensors! Sony said customers can customize our sensors according to their needs. Let me elaborate, what this means you can take features of other sensors and put them all in a sensor of your choice. For example, if Pentax decided, they can choose to update their 36mp sensor. In theory Pentax could order a 36mp stacked sensor with 4k video out! I can't find the article, I can't prove if it's correct.
---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 03:05 AM ----------
Originally posted by Alex645 I wasn't separating cost from benefit; cost vs. benefit. In other words, is the cost of actually producing 56x42mm sensor instead of 44x33mm worth the benefit of resolution and file size. In a different way the same is true with film; Pentax could make a true 60x45mm negative on 120 film, but to do so, instead of getting 15-16 exposures per roll, you'd get 12. Is that extra real estate in either analog or digital worth the cost to the photographer?
Although it does irk me that a 645 is not really 645, I understand and, for example, would not want to trek around town and country with a 6x7 just to get that larger size neg. I also would not want to only get 12 exposures per 120 roll. Not everyone would agree and, for example, many photographers love their 67. But then, are they bothered their negs are not 60x70mm??
Do you know what irks me more??? APS-C isn't APS-C at all, it's much more cropped than it should be. The real half format was 24mm x 18mm. While today's APS-C is 23.5 x 15.7!!! They have shrunk it from 24x16! This pisses me off!
---------- Post added 08-31-18 at 03:08 AM ----------
Originally posted by yucafrita If the prices for larger sensors come down, it would be worth to consider the feasibility of a digital 67. Sure, it's not on the agenda now, but I am curious if Ricoh would enter this segment, once sensors in this size become available and not too pricey.
In the meantime, an un-cropped 645 would be great, I think (although I am not really a potential customer).
For that to happen, sensor tech needs to improve first! Like for example inclusion of graphene!