[Pål Jensen]

I think they definitely need to come out with a professional service program also to help compete, I believe they used to offer a service for 645Z not sure if they still do or not but I’ve heard Fuji has a decent program in the US at least. Buyers spending that kind of money want reassurance if they have a problem they will get quick service or a loaner.

Not necessary. Pentax makes field cameras. They did that in the film days as well. Never targeted the commercial or studio shooter.....

An FF 645 does make sense. It will increase the distance to the K-mount FF system offer more return in terms of image quality for the significant extra money.
A full frame 645 camera will be more expensive due to the extra sensor cost, but developing costs and manufacturing cost should be about the same as for an FF 645 body. Cropped lenses will probably not get significantly cheaper than FF 645 lenses as it is not glass cost that push MF lens prices upwards, but the fact that they are made in relatively small quantities.

---

Last edited by Pål Jensen; 12-25-2020 at 03:21 PM.

[pentaxus]

I think image stabilization would be a great addition. My thought is that it probably would use a ton of power which would require a now battery or a camera that uses two batteries.

[barondla]

Find it interesting that there isn't sufficient roi too to go ff, and yet the competitor has built 3 new digital mf bodies and 9 lenses in 3 years. So their accountants are nuts? Hard to believe. They survived the transition from film to digital.

The money isn't with the pros. It's the amateur. So the new body would be over $10K. Didn't stop the Z. I don't buy the "dumping old lenses" theory. It doesn't explain the release of the 2nd 25mm, 28-45 and 90 macro. The 645 could end up like the Q, but I don't believe it will. Ricoh admitted they were having a tough time figuring out how to make a Q that could repel the phone onslaught. Ricoh never said they see no where for mf to shine.

Pixel shift, composition adjust, and astrotracing may be more useful to us than ff. But, they aren't more useful to Pentax. Pentax and Olympus have pushed these technologies. Where has it gotten them? They are very special use features that only work sometimes. A large sensor always works.

The competitor has already brought out SR and Pixel shift in their flagship. Some don't like their Pixel Shift implementation. Doesn't matter, they ticked the feature box. They could add Pentax's method to their camera at any time (unless Pentax has it patented). Once there's a moving sensor, Astrotracer, composition adjust, and other things can be added. If the competitor feels they are worthwhile they will be added. Pentax's advantages could evaporate at any time. There was a time only Pentax and Minolta had sensor stabilization. Now everyone has it.

If Pentax isn't willing or able to match Fuji's investment they will have to compete in a different arena. Move to a smaller pond.

Even the 645Z's landscape cred is in jeopardy. A camera with the same basic image quality and half the weight is very enticing to hikers. Pentax needs ff to balance the comparison.

Thanks,
barondla

[KiloHotelphoto]

I think Ricoh have already given up in the medium format segment, they just wont announce it. Or they truly believe that mirrorless will not be popular and and most of those Fuji shooters will comeback to a medium format dslr.

I'm not sure astrotracer is a big deal, you can get mounts that can do a much better job than you can do with just moving the sensor a little bit. Pixel shift is fine for something like product photography when nothing is moving but that is it.