[barondla]

Looking at the D and Z there is a lot of camera behind the sensor. Obviously Pentax needed room for the electronics. If they had added this to the bottom of the camera, a more standard SLR viewfinder could have been used. The long Kepler style eyepiece system must be expensive. Adding it to a SLR mechanism must add up to a very costly system.

Don't misunderstand, I love my Z. Just wonder why they choose this path.

Thanks,
barondla

[UncleVanya]

I assumed it was to be similar in style to the older film 645.

[Paul the Sunman]

The existing 645 lenses needed a 70.87mm flange focal distance, so it had to be that deep. A shallower body would have meant starting a new line of lenses from scratch, which was never a serious option. Or did you have some other proportion in mind?

[Fogel70]

There is more than 50mm space behind the mirror box on a Pentax 645 DSLR, so that could probably be cut down to less than half. But it does not make a huge difference.
K-mount DSLRs have like 15-20 mm space behind mirror box and they also have SR-mechanism that require some extra space.

I believe they kept the form factor from film 645 bodies as it make a better balanced camera. As medium format lenses in general are larger and heavier than on smaller formats.

[Serkevan]

The existing 645 lenses needed a 70.87mm flange focal distance, so it had to be that deep. A shallower body would have meant starting a new line of lenses from scratch, which was never a serious option. Or did you have some other proportion in mind?

The shutter plane is actually fairly close to the front of the camera, most of the body is behind the sensor. I assume it's because large sensor -> heat generation and that needs space to dissipate. Preserving the outer shape with all the new electronics probably meant extending backwards.

[w2ck]

Hi,

The digital variants look normal for a 645 to me, as in the same as the film variants. And, not just Pentax but the Mamiya and Contax ones I had in the past. So, I suppose Pentax wanted the same form factor. Kodak put the electronics under the film bodies for their many digital backed variants of Nikon and Canon DSLRs and that made for units less wieldy than if they'd had put the electronics out the back.

Stan

[UncleVanya]

645N ii:
DIMENSIONS & WEIGHT
Width 5.9 in
Depth 4.6 in
Height 4.4 in
Weight 45.15 oz

645z:
DIMENSIONS & WEIGHT
Width 6.1 in
Depth 4.8 in
Height 4.6 in
Weight 54.9 oz

The size and proportions are very similar to the original film design. There's a little more space behind the sensor, but not a lot. Granted the design of the film version has more depth behind the film plane than a 35mm already and this adds to that, but the lcd requires electronics and heat has to be able to get away from the sensor. Also the design looks like it used some fairly large components.

[ffking]

Also the design looks like it used some fairly large components.

You didn't have to cut your camera in half to make your point - we'd have believed you!

[UncleVanya]

You didn't have to cut your camera in half to make your point - we'd have believed you!

If I had a 645z, I'd cry if it was in this disrepair!

[kaseki]

If I had a 645z, I'd cry if it was in this disrepair!

Thanks for the cut-away image.

To the OP: We need all that volume for ever denser electronics to perform the myriad added "features" we write about here.

[pentaxus]

I never knew that there was a half frame version of the 645Z

[Paul the Sunman]

Does it have trouble with light leaks?

[UncleVanya]

I never knew that there was a half frame version of the 645Z

Lol. Very funny.

[UncleVanya]

Does it have trouble with light leaks?

Yes of course, but that's artistic and retro

[stevebrot]

Would Pentax have been better off with a different proportioned 645 digital body?

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





Steve