[ZombieArmy]

The only mistake was not making a full frame 6x7 digital camera instead! /s

[Paul the Sunman]

The only mistake was not making a full frame 6x7 digital camera instead! /s

O-M-G!

[Digitalis]

As I recall one of the original mockups for the 645D had the back on a hinge so it may have been possible to replace it down the road, so it would have been a more modular design. And it would have been easier to keep the sensor clean, and change out the hot mirror / AA filters if desired.

[officiousbystander]

Sure...why not, maybe something like my Mamiya Six:

Or the Fujifilm GW or GS rangefinder style. I have a Mamiya 645 and while I don't mind the weight, carrying around a big long box is awkward.

[stevebrot]

Or the Fujifilm GW or GS rangefinder style. I have a Mamiya 645 and while I don't mind the weight, carrying around a big long box is awkward.

You mean sort of like a TLR?


Steve

[officiousbystander]

You mean sort of like a TLR?

Boxy like this:


My most used camera is the GR. So I guess I've just become completely spoilt.

[stevebrot]

Boxy like this:


My most used camera is the GR. So I guess I've just become completely spoilt.

That camera is most purposeful in appearance! I had a 645N on loan for about six weeks several years ago and was quite taken at the time with the handling and ease of use compared to other medium format kit. With zero complaints from me on that camera, I can't imagine I would chafe at the form factor of the 645Z.


Steve

[w2ck]

As I recall one of the original mockups for the 645D had the back on a hinge so it may have been possible to replace it down the road, so it would have been a more modular design. And it would have been easier to keep the sensor clean, and change out the hot mirror / AA filters if desired.

Hi,

I had this with my Contax 645 and Kodak Pro Back. It would not work once in a while as the back lost connection with the body. Being in the business of electronics R&D, I can tell you that any sort of spring loaded connection scheme can have this sort of issue. Much better to use mechanically positive connectors, but then that means a rather permanent arrangement. So, as I see it, if one wants to shoot both film and digital, use two cameras.

Stan

---------- Post added 11-20-20 at 06:49 AM ----------

The only mistake was not making a full frame 6x7 digital camera instead! /s

Hi,

This then begs the question: Would you be up to paying $30,000 USD for one right after it comes out? That's a pretty good price estimate for such a unit. That would be a costly sensor as the yields go down as the size goes up.

And, it has precedence. Kodak sold their DCS 460 for $30k when it was new back around 1996. It was a favorite of the school portrait crowd and the product shooters.

But, yes, I would love to see a P67D. I also have to say that I wouldn't be up for buying one, though. Heck, I am still using a P645D and not a Z.

Stan

[Serkevan]

Hi,

This then begs the question: Would you be up to paying $30,000 USD for one right after it comes out? That's a pretty good price estimate for such a unit. That would be a costly sensor as the yields go down as the size goes up.

And, it has precedence. Kodak sold their DCS 460 for $30k when it was new back around 1996. It was a favorite of the school portrait crowd and the product shooters.

But, yes, I would love to see a P67D. I also have to say that I wouldn't be up for buying one, though. Heck, I am still using a P645D and not a Z.

Stan

I'm afraid it would be more than 30K. The Phase One true-645 cameras are 40K+. About 67K for a 67 would probably be more realistic...

[ZombieArmy]

Hi,

This then begs the question: Would you be up to paying $30,000 USD for one right after it comes out? That's a pretty good price estimate for such a unit. That would be a costly sensor as the yields go down as the size goes up.

And, it has precedence. Kodak sold their DCS 460 for $30k when it was new back around 1996. It was a favorite of the school portrait crowd and the product shooters.

But, yes, I would love to see a P67D. I also have to say that I wouldn't be up for buying one, though. Heck, I am still using a P645D and not a Z.

Stan

I'd start a business just to buy it.

[barondla]

I was thinking Pentax could've kept the 645 film camera's brick shape, but put the extra electronics under the camera instead of behind the sensor. This could obviously have happened because FF DSLRs do it. The 645D/Z electronically are just big K-3 camera's. Excepting the larger sensor and perhaps it's power supply why would the 645 need lots more space for electronics? Perhaps for memory, but that should be very small these days. I just look at the added complexity of the viewfinder and ask why pick this design? There may have been a reason for the film version, but I'm not sure It makes sense to move that to a once upon a time 10K digital.

I'm not even sure the brick shape made sense on the film 645s. Unless I'm missing something, the brick has one major plus - the ability to have fully interchangeable film backs. Pentax didn't go this way, which might have hurt them in sales. Perhaps they wanted to differentiate the 6x7 and 645 models. I'm fine with the brick but don't see any advantage to the shape vs 6x7/35mm slr shape.

What if Pentax surprises everyone with the next Z and offers a mini 6x7 shape. Two choices like their competitor.


Thanks,
barondla

[tonyzoc]

I was thinking Pentax could've kept the 645 film camera's brick shape, but put the extra electronics under the camera instead of behind the sensor. This could obviously have happened because FF DSLRs do it. The 645D/Z electronically are just big K-3 camera's. Excepting the larger sensor and perhaps it's power supply why would the 645 need lots more space for electronics? Perhaps for memory, but that should be very small these days. I just look at the added complexity of the viewfinder and ask why pick this design? There may have been a reason for the film version, but I'm not sure It makes sense to move that to a once upon a time 10K digital.



I'm not even sure the brick shape made sense on the film 645s. Unless I'm missing something, the brick has one major plus - the ability to have fully interchangeable film backs. Pentax didn't go this way, which might have hurt them in sales. Perhaps they wanted to differentiate the 6x7 and 645 models. I'm fine with the brick but don't see any advantage to the shape vs 6x7/35mm slr shape.



What if Pentax surprises everyone with the next Z and offers a mini 6x7 shape. Two choices like their competitor.





Thanks,

barondla

Kinda like a Rolleiflex SLX but digital...

[w2ck]

Hi,

Hmmm. Dunno for sure. I've not really thought about it much since the three brands of 645 film cameras I am familiar with all look pretty much alike. Well, I haven't owned a Pentax film 645 but they look alike to the Mamiya and Contax I have had. I always just figured the shape had to do with the film transport being at right angles to that in 135 format and the 6x7 is also the same as the 135 cameras, so I can see why that looks like a large 35mm...

But the digital being like the film units in overall size and shape just seems to make sense to me as the target market was mainly the film users.

The P645D I have is pretty close to what my Contax 645 was with the Kodak digital back. So I am quite content with it. I'd probably be just as content with it looking like the 6x7. I couldn't afford a digital 6x7 even if it were 'only' $30k so that would be Out.

Stan

[barondla]

Kinda like a Rolleiflex SLX but digital...

Yes, exactly. Back in the day I always wanted a SLX or SL66 with tilting bellows.

Thanks,
barondla

[ZombieArmy]

I know a digital 67 would be super cost prohibitive but I wonder if it'd make sense in any universe to make a modern film 67 in the 21st century. I imagine there are quite a few pros who still shoot medium format with film professionally.

Could make it WR and re release some of the top 67 lenses as HD WR versions of themselves. Would be kinda insane.