[texandrews]

My ideas for lenses was a ~150 F2.8 weatherproof image stabilized lens. It would complete the 28-45 and 90 stabilized lenses. It's kind of dumb to have stabilized wide angles and no tele, where it is really needed. Problem is, this would tip their hand on the next Z having sensor stabilization or not. My other idea was to have a fast 80mm. Mamiya has a F1.8! So build a F1.7. Unfortunately, Fuji has this very lens on their road map for 2021. The other problem with both lenses is it takes time to design something like this. Fuji came on so quickly, there might not be enough time to bring these lenses to market.

Your idea is genius. Tilt/shift lenses don't need af, image stabilization, or electrical contacts. Take a 67 45 lens, remove the mount, and replace it with a Tilt/shift mechanism wearing a 645 lens mount. That can't require that much research and development. But Fuji doesn’t have it, and it screams specialist. Consumer sees this and has no doubt Pentax is staying in medium format.

Thanks,
barondla

I think you might be on to something with respect to the 150---even though it's already one of the better lenses in the stable, an upgraded version could be a good idea---and they could even run it side x side with the existing one. With respect to showing their hand, I think some stabilized lenses can work with IBIS, right?

[barondla]

I think you might be on to something with respect to the 150---even though it's already one of the better lenses in the stable, an upgraded version could be a good idea---and they could even run it side x side with the existing one. With respect to showing their hand, I think some stabilized lenses can work with IBIS, right?

Perhaps tweak it to be a slightly different focal length and aperture. Say a 140 or 160 F2.5.
Speaking of lenses no medium format system has...how about a 645 version of the 10-17 fisheye zoom? It would be wider than the 25 & 28-45 Pentax lenses. Should be wider than the 23 Fuji.

Having executives talk about medium format would be helpful. Even if there's no new product, a company shouldn't let die hard customers think they are leaving a market segment. Pentax needs to put their story out there.If Pentax shows no interest why should consumers?

Thanks,
barondla

[texandrews]

Having executives talk about medium format would be helpful. Even if there's no new product, a company shouldn't let die hard customers think they are leaving a market segment. Pentax needs to put their story out there.If Pentax shows no interest why should consumers?

Thanks,
barondla

This I especially feel would be helpful. It's understood how camera companies, especially Japanese ones, play their cards close to the chest. I think they are pretty wrong about that, but it seems to be a true cultural thing, a feature not a bug. But discussion of Pentax's heritage here would be a great start, and a reminder to everyone that they were the company that brought digital medium format into the range of affordability amidst the other options that cost as much as a house.

[MJKoski]

About the electronic shutter: 50MP sensor supports it. GFX50 series has fully electronic shutter (and EFCS) available and it works wonders with Fuji's focus bracketing system.

Pentax should drop APS-C instantly and focus on K-1 and 645 only. K-1 with 61MP Sony sensor doubles up as a crop camera with more resolution than K-3 mk3 has. MK3 has been priced locally almost as high as new K-1 MK2 body. Quite insane situation.

[jatrax]

MK3 has been priced locally almost as high as new K-1 MK2 body. Quite insane situation.

Perhaps we need to get away from connecting price to sensor size and rather use camera capabilities. K-3III can do things no K-1 or 645 can do. It depends on what is required for a particular use case. If the K-3III does what a person needs better than a K-1 or 645 then why would the value be assumed to be less? Just because we have always used sensor size to judge cost? The sensor is a key component but I would theorize it is no longer the sole cost metric of a camera.

[MJKoski]

Yes true, it can do more right now. K-1 crop mode gives only ~16MP files. 61MP K-1 would be next level camera for I cannot see what the new K-3 could do better. Absolutely nothing in functionality or ergonomical side of things.

The thing is, Pentax/Ricoh has annnounced and released good, or even superb, new FF lenses while at the same time K-1 has been released twice with the same old sensor. Now R&D effort is used to breathe life into a crop system which has no new lens releases lately while the big guns (K-1 & 645Z) are left with little to no attention. What logic is this?

[jatrax]

which has no new lens releases lately

DA*11-18?
DA 55-300 PLM?
Announced DA*16-50 PLM?

I cannot see what the new K-3 could do better

Higher frames per second? Lighter weight?
Things will always change back and forth as new cameras are released, I just think we need to stop making the automatic assumption that smaller sensor = smaller price.

[biz-engineer]

The thing is, Pentax/Ricoh has annnounced and released good, or even superb, new FF lenses while at the same time K-1 has been released twice with the same old sensor. Now R&D effort is used to breathe life into a crop system which has no new lens releases lately while the big guns (K-1 & 645Z) are left with little to no attention. What logic is this?

It's not possible with 3% market share to design a release full system lineup within a few years time frame. Ricoh make new products to complete the existing stock of lenses or fill a gap in the old lineup, a bit like you add software patches to old software to keep selling the old software with updates. That's how they can hope to make a profit with 3% market share. In a way, doing so is also an advantage for customers who want to keep using the old glass they already have , and get a camera tech update without breaking the bank.

[MJKoski]

Maybe it is pre-release price reservation we have here locally but currently K-3 MK3 is no different to K-1 MK2 when it comes to breaking the bank. High-MP FF K-1, if sold in the same price class as the previous one, would double up as the crop body and offer crop lens owners a future upgrade to FF system without an additional camera body purchase later. This is still doable with low R&D budget. Now they have to sink more resources to keep up with both K-3 AND K-1 systems. Future of medium format remains a mystery in the Pentax camp.

[Serkevan]

Yes true, it can do more right now. K-1 crop mode gives only ~16MP files. 61MP K-1 would be next level camera for I cannot see what the new K-3 could do better. Absolutely nothing in functionality or ergonomical side of things.

The thing is, Pentax/Ricoh has annnounced and released good, or even superb, new FF lenses while at the same time K-1 has been released twice with the same old sensor. Now R&D effort is used to breathe life into a crop system which has no new lens releases lately while the big guns (K-1 & 645Z) are left with little to no attention. What logic is this?

Good luck getting a FF 12fps mech shutter/mirror assembly on a $2K camera, though. The only ones that have that are the Canikon flagships.

[repaap]

What is wrong with that is that no one should take it for grated that next K-1 will be 2000€ mark. I’d think that they made very good offer with old K-1. Next with bigger sensor and things that are new in K-3 mk.3 are going to increase the price. Same will go for next 645. I suppose they said about not going to concentrate on price anymore so much(we have seen that) to make new product competetive. They will concentrate on imagequality. What Pentax/ricoh has is what many brands does not have. Legazy of amazing lenses in 6X7&645. Ofcourse these can be adapted. But it could be that they are already thinking of honing up some of those. I suppose some of old Takumars could have still a lot of potential. Now, this is what other companies can’t do.

It could also be that next 645 is with slightly bigger sensor with possibility to crop is needed and it would work perfect with some old lenses right from the beginning.

[TDvN57]

Pentax is facing some stiff competition with other cameras on the market. Trying to cover a wide range of formats will dilute their efforts and finances. They will have to clearly identify their market demographics and focus on what sells to the top demographics.

The 645z with all the lenses available makes for a fantastic system, even though it is not really medium format. In the film days 6x7 and larger was medium format, the 645 film was almost mf. The 645z crop is even further away from real MF.

In terms of competition, cameras like the new Nikon Z7ii definitely outperforms the 645z in all aspects including low light conditions. At half the price tag. Is that worth the extra sensor size?

Considering that the 645z is 6 years old, my statement is definitely unfair, but it is a reality. This highlights the need for systems to be upgraded on a periodic basis. Perhaps a modular approach might soften the ongoing upgrade costs.

[texandrews]

Pentax is facing some stiff competition with other cameras on the market. Trying to cover a wide range of formats will dilute their efforts and finances. They will have to clearly identify their market demographics and focus on what sells to the top demographics.

Well, OTOH, Pentax is the only manufacturer covering apsc though FF to medium format. What's unfortunate to me is that they don't make more of that fact with respect to marketing----but of course their marketing is just terrible anyway.

The 645z with all the lenses available makes for a fantastic system, even though it is not really medium format. In the film days 6x7 and larger was medium format, the 645 film was almost mf. The 645z crop is even further away from real MF.

That's not really true, since 6x6 was definitely MF and really so was 645. As far as the current crop factor is concerned, I really think that's a decidedly debatable point, with the naysayers back-footed from the start. The crop sensor's ultimate results are at least the equal of 645 film imo and the opinions of many others, and in the higher iso's better than 6x6 and 6x7. So, I think those arguments are a bit strange.

In terms of competition, cameras like the new Nikon Z7ii definitely outperforms the 645z in all aspects including low light conditions. At half the price tag. Is that worth the extra sensor size?

I'm not so sure about that, either, from the standpoint of image quality. It's awkward to find myself disagreeing with you so much, as that's normally not the case.

[TDvN57]

Well, OTOH, Pentax is the only manufacturer covering apsc though FF to medium format. What's unfortunate to me is that they don't make more of that fact with respect to marketing----but of course their marketing is just terrible anyway. That's not really true, since 6x6 was definitely MF and really so was 645. As far as the current crop factor is concerned, I really think that's a decidedly debatable point, with the naysayers back-footed from the start. The crop sensor's ultimate results are at least the equal of 645 film imo and the opinions of many others, and in the higher iso's better than 6x6 and 6x7. So, I think those arguments are a bit strange. I'm not so sure about that, either, from the standpoint of image quality. It's awkward to find myself disagreeing with you so much, as that's normally not the case.

My introduction to mf was with a loupe looking at a contact sheet of a pro photographer's pictures I met at the lab where I had my film developed. He was selecting frames to be enlarged for his client and allowed me to take a look. I was hooked and knew I had to get a MF camera, which led me to the Pentax 6x7 a kit lens 105mm f2.4 and a handheld light meter.

The images I saw through the loupe were lifelike and is something that is seemingly impossible with a 35mm.

I'm sure my experience is far from unique and I am sure most people that love MF had similar experiences.

I could never replicate that experience with the 645 film. Transparencies came close but not quite.

Despite that the 645z placed itself (in my humble opinion) as a class above FF. Perhaps the image quality or the resolution or the low light capabilities made the difference, I can't tell. It was just superior.

Last week my wife got the Z7ii as a second camera aside her main D850. I was never impressed with the D850 or the D810. The iq was not bad for a FF but low light performance was underwhelming. She could never take high quality shots at higher than 800iso. So when the Z7ii arrived she asked me to check it out. I was amazed, the iq is at least equal to the 645z and low noise at higher iso is definitely superior to the 645z. At 45mpx it is a formidable camera with high frame rate shooting with an extensive buffer that lasts almost 10 seconds. All in raw format.

I know I'm comparing 2021 camera with a 2014 camera, which is unfair, but the reality is that both of these are on the shelves.

That is why I'm saying that Pentax will have to decide on the demographic of their market and get focused on developing that market. Coming out with a new model of a full range of cameras at long intervals will always cause them to fall behind and having to play catchup with technology.

Trying to service the full range of formats is an expensive strategy which will dilute the limited funds and resources available.

So we can debate and agree and disagree all we like, but since nobody knows what is Pentax's strategy, nor does it seem possible to figure it out from the crumbs of information we hear and deduce. All we hear and see is the ceo demonstrating the fast shutter speed of the new K3. I'm sure it is a great camera, but that is not my point.

I've been a Pentax shooter since the early 80's and many on this forum pre date that by a lot, and I have a deep respect for the brand and my fellow Pentaxians. These are difficult times and unless Pentax stop to act like a broad market leader which they once were, and develop their new position as a niche expert brand, we all risk ending up with a lot of expensive and obsolete gear.

[MJKoski]

I use 4x5" camera every now and then. Compared to that these pea-sized 44x33mm mouse traps are pure junk.

But that Z7ii is doing some major mangling of RAW data is it really is better than D850 or original Z7. I suspect it is the same IQ but some placebo effect is happening there.