[Franc]

you can alway try this one if you want to go big:
8x10 (10x8) Large format digital back model LS911

[2351HD]

rather than a 100mp camera, I would like to see a revamp of the Z with a deeper buffer, more AF points and a faster AF system. And where is all the new glass?

That is true. It’s the lack of new glass that scares me the most, as it shows sign of no commitment. I am concerned that if they go with a new 100mp crop sensor and leave it in the same bulky body, where is the advantage over the mirrorless options?

If they go with a 100mp full frame MF chip, which is highly unlikely, then my investment in a 28-45 is wasted.

If they go mirrorless, then my invenstment in current lenses is wasted also.

What if they went mirrorless but kept the same flange distance and reduced the body size, as there is room for reduced body depth in the current Z design. This would reduce weight also.

There is a lot to dislike about the Fuji and Hasselblad mirrorless systems, especially using them in the field. Pentax still has a wonderful system in this regard.

---------- Post added 09-29-18 at 04:54 AM ----------

Fuji said it themselves: the 100MP sensor needs to be stabilized to make a difference. So I'd guess we'll see a 645 model with just that, plus the K-1's UI.

Adam I would happily take a slightly reduced body size Z, with IBIS and the K1’s flippy screen, in a mirrorless format. That would reduce weight just taking out the mirror, pentaprism and viewfinder.

[texandrews]

Gives a bit more insight about what Ricoh-Pentax is thinking. It's conservative to be sure, but knowing what I now do about working with the Japanese, who are as a general rule anything but frank, I think one can suss out what they are up to. Several comments have me coming away feeling guardedly positive. If you are looking for an explicit roadmap, though, don't bother reading.

[2351HD]

What does make me wonder though, is the furious manner in which both Hasselblad and Fuji are designing and releasing new lenses for their respective systems. Firstly they aren’t cheap and secondly the market apparently isn’t as large.

But here they both are with these tremendous roadmaps and Fuji are already into their second body with a lens package that within 3-6 months actually now does rival that of Pentax and mostly will exceed it.

Is there more of a market there than Ricoh would make us believe there is? Surely Ricoh see the potential here now.

[texandrews]

The furious pace has to do with Fuji at least having to start from scratch on their lenses. I think Hassy too for the new ones. I predict both will slow down----you won't see Canon-Nikon levels of lens offerings ever.
From the interview I am disappointed that Pentax doesn't seem to be planning at least a refresh of several lenses.

[jadeyphoto]

I never understand the people who say "why would anyone need xyz technological improvement". It was the same for memory (why need more), harddrives (why need bigger), phone screens (why need larger), megapixels (who needs more than 8MP), etc. etc. etc. I'm a perfectly normal, non-flashy, non-measurebating photographer who could use more megapixels because it allows me more flexibility in cropping. Why debate against progress. The Canon crowd has been worst in this regard rationalizing the lack of features/performance in their system and Canon has responded by providing the most incremental of upgrades. I don't want to wait years more for an upgrade from Pentax because the 645Z is "enough".

[2351HD]

I never understand the people who say "why would anyone need xyz technological improvement". It was the same for memory (why need more), harddrives (why need bigger), phone screens (why need larger), megapixels (who needs more than 8MP), etc. etc. etc. I'm a perfectly normal, non-flashy, non-measurebating photographer who could use more megapixels because it allows me more flexibility in cropping. Why debate against progress. The Canon crowd has been worst in this regard rationalizing the lack of features/performance in their system and Canon has responded by providing the most incremental of upgrades. I don't want to wait years more for an upgrade from Pentax because the 645Z is "enough".

You might get flamed around these parts for that view. I’ve said the same about new 645 lenses and received the “old FA lenses are more than adequate” spiel many times.

If you’re using a set of top primes lenses, then you need all the res you can get because it allows for cropping the “in between” focal lengths easily.

[rdenney]

You might get flamed around these parts for that view. I’ve said the same about new 645 lenses and received the “old FA lenses are more than adequate” spiel many times.



If you’re using a set of top primes lenses, then you need all the res you can get because it allows for cropping the “in between” focal lengths easily.

You may be missing the point of some of those responses. It’s not that the vintage lenses are as good as new lenses, or good enough for the most demanding possible applications, it’s that it’s a great advantage to accommodate vintage lenses meaningfully. It allows a working pro (probably more interested in fulfilling well-understood requirements than chasing specs) to build a comprehensive kit that can deliver professional results for relatively cheaply.

Pentax is a price-point camera, providing a compromise between cost and performance. Pentax has built its brand image on that compromise, being known for hitting above its weight rather than for being a heavy hitter. Hasselblad (and Leica) built their brand on not making price point compromises, and their prices reflect it.

Not every innovation is an improvement, but people make investments. I will get ten good years out of my 645z, just as I got a dozen good years out of my Canon 5D, and more than that out of my film equipment. There is always something new out there, but I’d rather focus my energy on mastering what I have than chasing rainbows.

For me, I want enough resolution to prevent any loss of the illusion of endless detail, no matter how closely a print is viewed. Even for 16x20 prints, that is a challenge, and it’s not just resolution, it’s also tonal content. The Pentax will do that with lenses I can afford, with reasonable technique. My Canon 5DII could not, even with state-of-art glass, and it wasn’t about resolution—the 17x enlargement just dries out the tone. It makes great 12x18 prints to my standard, though.

Having a lens roadmap with 30 new lenses on it means nothing to me if they are all thousands of dollars.

And Pentax’s commitment to the 645 mount, unbroken since the early 80’s, means something to me.

Rick “noting Fuji’s penchant for specialty market cameras abandoned after a few years” Denney

[2351HD]

You may be missing the point of some of those responses. It’s not that the vintage lenses are as good as new lenses, or good enough for the most demanding possible applications, it’s that it’s a great advantage to accommodate vintage lenses meaningfully. It allows a working pro (probably more interested in fulfilling well-understood requirements than chasing specs) to build a comprehensive kit that can deliver professional results for relatively cheaply

That’s fine, yes I do understand that completely and I’m not trying to take that away from anybody.

I myself got into the system with a Pentax Australia distributor demo body 645D and purchased one new lens the 55, then a used FA80-160. Then I purchased both the DFA90 and DA28-45 new later on after getting my 645Z.

I have contemplated heavily on selling my whole 645 kit of late, because compared to my 5Dmk4 it operates like an old camera and is missing critical features. Add that to the fact that my 80-60 has been through the wringer and I would like to replace it, but the roadmapped zoom lenses just never came, so I am forced to replace it with either another old 80-160 or most likely an FA 120 macro, due to the fact I’m trying to downsize the 645 kit in order to use it more.

The reality is that in order to stay in the game you have to remain relevant, Pentax are at risk of not remaining relevant by not at least providing an update to common old lenses and a refresh of the Z. Heck I’d be happy if they just did updates on the 45-85 and 80-160 in the same way they did for the FA35.

Consumers want to spend money on shiny new things, pros not so much as there has to be return on investment. You’ll find that the majority of Pentax users are enthusiast consumers, not pros.

[johnha]

And Pentax’s commitment to the 645 mount, unbroken since the early 80’s, means something to me.

+1 but not just the 645 mount, the ability to use decades of 6x7 lenses seamlessly has been instrumental in me buying a 645D. This wasn't some 'happy coincidence' because there happened to be 6x7 -> 645 adapters hanging around in the used market, it was a decision by Pentax to promote the feature when the 645D was launched. Other manufacturers would have deliberately changed the mount to force users to buy new lenses (or crippled the 'legacy' lenses in some way). 6x7 lenses can be used seamlessly - I can set the camera to Program mode, attach a 6x7 lens via the adapter and the camera immediately switches to Av.

But it's not just lenses, all my old Pentax accessories work (flashguns, IR remotes etc), it even takes the same batteries and O-GPS1 as my K-5, it has the same double dial 'hyper' mode interface as my Z-1 & K-5. Granted some of this kit has been superseded and won't get the best out of the camera - my AF240FT only works as a manual flash but still provides an AF illuminator and rear-curtain sync and does so without me having to spend £500 on a new flash. I'm not a pro and each of these features is saving me hundreds of pounds (lens compatibility saves thousands), more importantly it allows me to buy the D in the first place - Pentax made it an easy decision for me.

John.

[texandrews]

You may be missing the point of some of those responses. It’s not that the vintage lenses are as good as new lenses, or good enough for the most demanding possible applications, it’s that it’s a great advantage to accommodate vintage lenses meaningfully. It allows a working pro (probably more interested in fulfilling well-understood requirements than chasing specs) to build a comprehensive kit that can deliver professional results for relatively cheaply.

Pentax is a price-point camera, providing a compromise between cost and performance. Pentax has built its brand image on that compromise, being known for hitting above its weight rather than for being a heavy hitter. Hasselblad (and Leica) built their brand on not making price point compromises, and their prices reflect it.

Not every innovation is an improvement, but people make investments. I will get ten good years out of my 645z, just as I got a dozen good years out of my Canon 5D, and more than that out of my film equipment. There is always something new out there, but I’d rather focus my energy on mastering what I have than chasing rainbows.

For me, I want enough resolution to prevent any loss of the illusion of endless detail, no matter how closely a print is viewed. Even for 16x20 prints, that is a challenge, and it’s not just resolution, it’s also tonal content. The Pentax will do that with lenses I can afford, with reasonable technique. My Canon 5DII could not, even with state-of-art glass, and it wasn’t about resolution—the 17x enlargement just dries out the tone. It makes great 12x18 prints to my standard, though.

Having a lens roadmap with 30 new lenses on it means nothing to me if they are all thousands of dollars.

And Pentax’s commitment to the 645 mount, unbroken since the early 80’s, means something to me.

Rick “noting Fuji’s penchant for specialty market cameras abandoned after a few years” Denney

I'll second that entire post, and underline the tonal bit. DR and tonality are becoming somewhat more important to me than clinical sharpness. But I can get the Z to be pretty doggone sharp....

[ogl]

I think Ricoh will use 100 MP 44*33 mm sensor in future camera...

[2351HD]

I think Ricoh will use 100 MP 44*33 mm sensor in future camera...

Let’s hope!

[672]

just....make....lenses....

[KDINDC]

I stitch a lot, so end up with 100mp or larger files already. I'd be more interested in mirrorless. That would give the ability to use the camera as a digital back on a view camera. Currently, that's the only reason that I'm looking at the Fujis.