[torge]

Pixel Shift, Composition Adjustment...

right, forgot, features that my K5 doesn't have yet, time to upgrade for me I guess

[JPT]

Adding SR to the 645 line would be a big step forward but would also involve a lot of R&D. Will Ricoh Imaging be keen on spending the corresponding budget in a development that can't be easily re-used for K-mount cameras? Usually it's the other way around: developments made for K-mount cameras (autofocus module, metering module and more) are re-used for the 645 line.

When I saw the Lens Rentals tear-down of a GFX 100, the SR system looked very similar to the Pentax system. Look at the magnetic coils around the sensor.
Lens Rentals | Blog

This made me wonder whether this might be shared technology with Pentax anyway, maybe licensed patents or co-developed. Pentax does have tons of patents on SR and this looks very similar to them to my untrained eye.

On the other hand this might just be the way all SR systems look.

[Jonathan Mac]

The 645Z and K1 II are both a little long in the tooth by modern standards but I'm not really sure, other than the obligatory and vague "AF improvements", what changes they would incorporate.

[Kunzite]

The 645Z and K1 II are both a little long in the tooth by modern standards but I'm not really sure, other than the obligatory and vague "AF improvements", what changes they would incorporate.

The K-1 would get an overall speed improvement, hopefully a new high refraction glass pentaprism, and likely an image quality improvement.
The 645Z would reset the image quality gap from the small format to where it should be.

[davidsladek]

I think they need to go the full size 645 chip to gain advantage over the Fuji and still be able to re-use its lens line or, and I am not holding my breath, bury 645 in favour of 67 which would be much more expensive but would certainly make a massive breathing space between Pentax the other MF manufacturers and still use the brand legacy

[Kunzite]

AFAIK there's no suitable 6x7 sensor - going full size 645 seems like their best option.

[MMVIII]

does SR really makes sense in a - more likely to be mounted on a tripod - MF camera?

I think the beauty of the Pentax 645 line was always that they functioned as field cameras. The rugged sealed construction of the body, the ergonomy, user interface and feature set derived from the latest 35mm/FF (D)SLR supported such use. IIRC they did introduce some/one lens with OIS though. But in digital era IBIS might be more versatile and, I can imagine, quite useful.

[SteveinSLC]

With pixel shift type technologies getting more common and better, the market for MF is getting squeezed at the lower end.
There may be room for a Pentax 645 100MP with SR that could be used to produce really large and detailed files. Otherwise, I'm having a hard time see where they would slot something in, given the available sensors.

The issue then would be lenses...there's not too many modern lenses to go with such a body. Would the perception still be that Fuji is a better choice if you're spending that kind of money?

[Rondec]

right, forgot, features that my K5 doesn't have yet, time to upgrade for me I guess

What Kunzite said. Stick pixel shift, composition adjustment and maybe a astro tracer in there for a package that Fuji has trouble matching.

[zapp]

AFAIK there's no suitable 6x7 sensor - going full size 645 seems like their best option.

And no suitable lens line for digital 67.
Pentax 645 was always a budged system for medium format systems. The sensor was never top pixel count. Price-performance was always great. We will see a 40+MP K1 before the 645 update. Pentax knows the sales numbers and has to decide on an update.
Looking at the current offerings by Fuji et al, Pentax should concentrate on Apsc and FF format. There is more high pixel count glass available for smaller formats than for 645.

[Zygonyx]

Let's figure what fighting against Fuji GFX (or Leica S2) would mean :
1- not enough modern lenses [basically only 4 : DA28-45 (cropped sensor only) DFA35, DFA55, DFA90]
2- no more UWA (Fuji has 23mm, Leica 24mm)
3- bulkier body (even if there is room for lesser volume)
4- highest construction prices (body and lenses)
5- same Sony sensors (probably not as "cheap" as before Fuji)

Conclusion : heavier investments needed, lowest market shares to catch...

/GoTo K-mount.

[davidsladek]

I don't think the 67 move would need to be about pixel count, but that format gives, yet again, a different optical experience, than 645 or FF or smaller... and the existing 67 lens line up is unmatched by other existing digital brands... yes, none is digital ready, but some are priceless gems and still widely available and loved. It is about differentiation and 67 is a territory where none of the existing competition has as much experience and legacy as Pentax.

[RobA_Oz]

If Ricoh is “studying the market” then I assume the 645Z is still selling reasonably well somewhere, if not everywhere, but I’d be surprised if the Fuji MF system hadn’t had some adverse impact on 645Z sales.

If we rule out a shift to MF mirrorless, or even a different SLR body (though I can’t see any great advantage in that) then the easiest course of action to update the 645Z would have to be adding some technology from the K-3iii (metering, AF, viewfinder prism and mirror for instance). More technically-difficult additions like PS technology might have to wait (even a lighter mirror based on the K-3iii’s might be difficult) but would certainly add to the 645Z’s appeal.

[Kunzite]

And no suitable lens line for digital 67.
Pentax 645 was always a budged system for medium format systems. The sensor was never top pixel count. Price-performance was always great. We will see a 40+MP K1 before the 645 update. Pentax knows the sales numbers and has to decide on an update.
Looking at the current offerings by Fuji et al, Pentax should concentrate on Apsc and FF format. There is more high pixel count glass available for smaller formats than for 645.

Wait, isn't 67 manual focus only?

The 645 format is more than enough, I'd say. And, if possible, it shouldn't be abandoned - but then, the K-1 Mark III with the D FA* primes might challenge the medium format image quality.

[clackers]

IMHO, Pentax can't get its money back on a new 645 quick enough to keep the executives happy .... unless ...

Unless it shares technology with the new cropped flagship. That will feature a new SAFOX and PRIME.

That would make more sense, it's amortizing. It's how the Z came about, it's basically a big K-3.

What other companies do is perhaps irrelevant, I suspect Fuji is losing money and being kept afloat by its Instamax film products.

What Pentax needs to do is to either stay in the black by any amount or be in the red by a small amount during this crashing market, for its Ricoh masters to not just shut it down altogether.

That the Imaging division president himself appeared in a Live Event talking about the immediate future (including a doubling down on DSLRs) is reassuring. You don't do that without approval from above, you don't pump up something that's about to be defunded.