[davidsladek]

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.

Yes, I think FF is defo eating into the reasons for 645 and this MF format has, perhaps, lost some of the wow factor. I know there isn't a 67 chip now but assume the development goes as it does, someone will eventually make the leap. Just imagine all the happy field photographers out there!

[Zygonyx]

OK for 6x7 digital MF !

[Rondec]

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.

I think Pentax has enough older lenses available to make a 645z sequel go, even if they aren't top end, brand spanking new lenses. It actually is viewed as a positive that there are relatively cheap FA options out there. If Pentax comes out with another medium format camera, it will share DNA with the K-3 III and the K-1 III -- this would make for less R and D and hopefully make the cost more competitive.

[Mistral75]

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

One of the problems would be the sensor's cost and therefore the price of the camera.

• IMX211, the older one (40.4mm x 53.7mm, frontside illuminated, 100 MP), is only used by Hasselblad in their H6D-100c and by Phase One in their IQ4 100MP camera back.
• IMX411, the newer one (40.4mm x 53.7mm, backside illuminated, 150 MP), is only used by Phase One in their IQ4 150MP camera back.

These are very low volume, very expensive products. For instance the Hasselblad H6D-100c costs $18,000 more than the H6D-50c (which includes the same sensor as the Pentax 645Z). The only difference between the two cameras is their sensor and what goes with it. Part of the difference in price is the 'Hasselblad premium' but still...

[davidsladek]

One of the problems would be the sensor's cost and therefore the price of the camera.

• IMX211, the older one (40.4mm x 53.7mm, frontside illuminated, 100 MP), is only used by Hasselblad in their H6D-100c and by Phase One in their IQ4 100MP camera back.
• IMX411, the newer one (40.4mm x 53.7mm, backside illuminated, 150 MP), is only used by Phase One in their IQ4 150MP camera back.

These are very low volume, very expensive products. For instance the Hasselblad H6D-100c costs $18,000 more than the H6D-50c (which includes the same sensor as the Pentax 645Z). The only difference between the two cameras is their sensor and what goes with it. Part of the difference in price is the 'Hasselblad premium' but still...

Of course one cannot expect consumer level pricing on such products, but if Pentax or whomever would be the only player in the class/size, assuming they have a good product, they can charge as much as they feel is reasonable and not worry about competition so much... but, hey, we're in a hypothetical dreamland here anyway

[Mistral75]

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.

Yes they did. Two, the latest two actually (not counting the 35mm f/3.5 revamping): HD Pentax-D FA 645 Macro 90mm f/2.8 ED AW SR and HD Pentax-DA 645 28-45mm f/4.5 ED AW SR.

[Mistral75]

Of course one cannot expect consumer level pricing on such products, but if Pentax or whomever would be the only player in the class/size, assuming they have a good product, they can charge as much as they feel is reasonable and not worry about competition so much... but, hey, we're in a hypothetical dreamland here anyway

Pentax wouldn't be the only player: Hasselblad and Phase One are still there, with a range of more modern lenses and all the services required by the professional photographers who can afford to buy or rent such cameras. There aren't many of them since they have to be able to charge their own clients accordingly.

The market for cameras above $15,000 is very tiny (a couple of thousand cameras or digital backs per year) and the players have to propose lenses and services on par with their cameras.

On the other hand, the clientele of wealthy amateurs has been captured by Fujifilm and Hasselblad with their mirrorless offering.

What remains to Ricoh Imaging is Pentaxians and people interested in a low-cost entry into medium format territory. This clientele does not overlap with that of expensive full-size 645 cameras.

[Kunzite]

Pentax wouldn't be the only player: Hasselblad and Phase One are still there, with a range of more modern lenses and all the services required by the professional photographers who can afford to buy or rent such cameras. There aren't many of them since they have to be able to charge their own clients accordingly.

The market for cameras above $15,000 is very tiny (a couple of thousand cameras or digital backs per year) and the players have to propose lenses and services on par with their cameras.

On the other hand, the clientele of wealthy amateurs has been captured by Fujifilm and Hasselblad with their mirrorless offering.

What remains to Ricoh Imaging is Pentaxians and people interested in a low-cost entry into medium format territory. This clientele does not overlap with that of expensive full-size 645 cameras.

Pentax was there first - on the way-under-$15,000 digital medium format market. I wouldn't count them out yet.
Perhaps the worst competitor for a new 645 is a high end "K-1".

[someasiancameraguy]

Pentax was there first - on the way-under-$15,000 digital medium format market. I wouldn't count them out yet.
Perhaps the worst competitor for a new 645 is a high end "K-1".

Considering that the A7R4 has like some 60+ mpix with pixel shift (although it is terribly implemented from a workflow perspective and subject to jaggy sharpening artifacts), the access to ultra high IQ quality has already reached a point where most camera manufacturers simply don't care much about resolution. We've been stuck basically at 24 mpix APS-c for a decade now because it's enough for the super majority of print. So even if Pentax is capable of releasing a new medium format, there's very little professional need that a new medium format can do which the K-1 can't.

[Kunzite]

Medium format is not for the masses.

[Pål Jensen]

What remains to Ricoh Imaging is Pentaxians and people interested in a low-cost entry into medium format territory. This clientele does not overlap with that of expensive full-size 645 cameras.

Pentax MF is, and has always been, field cameras. Never intended for the professional studio, or event shooter. Pentax have never been in the same marked as Hasselblad and Phase one.
I believe we will see a FF 645 Pentax DSLR in the fullness of time:lol. To increase the distance in image quality from the Pentax FF DSLR's more than a cropped 645 sensor can do . In addition, the developing cost for the MF camera and the FF 645 lenses will be about the same as for a cropped 645 system. The extra cost is in the larger sensor. 645 lens prices is not primarily a function of glass costs but the fact that they sell in small numbers making them expensive anyway, so there's not a significant gain here for cropped lenses.
It is worth noting that Pentax removed every cropped 645 lens previously on the roadmap. This happen about the same time as they decided on K-mount FF. It think there is a connection between these facts...

[OoKU]

，。…

Hard to say

[torge]

，。…

Hard to say

hard to understand

[Zygonyx]

It is worth noting that Pentax removed every cropped 645 lens previously on the roadmap. This happen about the same time as they decided on K-mount FF. It think there is a connection between these facts...

Hard to memorise : do you remember which crop lenses ?

Actually, the cropped 25mm and 28-45mm were big mistakes imho.
Using film and hoping for bigger digital sensor, i always refused to (and would in the future) buy 645 DA lenses.

[Belnan]

Hmm... Pixel Shift, Composition Adjustment...

Lots of good stuff for sure.