[barondla]

I don't see a choice. The competitor is mirrorless. That's perceived as the hot new technology. They have now added pixel shift to their top camera and it's only a matter of time before it trickles down to their lower MP bodies. They are a larger company and seem willing to refresh the system much more often. How does Pentax compete with this?

Pentax goes ff. The competitor can't follow. The fact that a DSLR is bigger doesn't matter as much. It's a bigger sensor. Apples and oranges. Some will say they are better off with a smaller sensor and pixel shift. They may be. But, PS only works sometimes and often requires lots of post production to correct artifacts. A big sensor always works. I find PS very similar to the Sigma Foveon.

Some say Pentax doesn't have enough ultra sharp lenses for a new high MP ff camera. This is probably true. However, it is a mistake to think everyone wants that look. Look at all the people using screw thread lens on the K-1. It's not just Pentax users. There are Sony "35" ff users shooting the Canon 50mm f 0.95 from the 50's.

It might be a mistake to target pros as the main user group. I see lots of 500 & 600 F4 lenses out photographing wildlife. Perhaps one was a pro user. The majority are advanced amateurs. I see tons of used Pentax 645 equipment available from Japan. Most in ex+ or mint shape. Pros use their equipment and it rarely looks brand new after a year. Wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot more amateurs shooting mf than pros.

Pentax already has larger telephoto lenses than the competitor. They've been over taken on the wide end by a 23mm. Pentax already knows this and must beat it. Amateurs that will never buy the lens, still use it as an indication of the breadth of the system. No one does this better than Canon.

What would be great is if Pentax could keep the Z body or perhaps a stripped down version for entry level and a new ff as a step up.

Thanks,
barondla

[UncleVanya]

What does Sony “35” mean? Is that a film reference?

A big sensor 645 is a great dream. Does anyone make such a sensor? Without an existing sensor I imagine the costs would get astronomical.

[barondla]

What does Sony “35” mean? Is that a film reference?

A big sensor 645 is a great dream. Does anyone make such a sensor? Without an existing sensor I imagine the costs would get astronomical.

Sony "35" was a reference to the Sony ff digital camera's with 24x36 mm sensors. Did this to separate them from a much larger ff medium format sensor.

Yes, sony makes a real close to ff sensor that Phase One and perhaps Hasselblad use. It won't be cheap. But adding moving sensors to crop camera's can't be either.

Thanks,
barondla

[KiloHotelphoto]

Phase One and Hasselblad have larger 53.4x40.0 sensors with 100mp and they cost $30,000 and up. I’m not sure Ricoh has the buyers willing to pay that kind of price. I’m sure Ricoh could make something cheaper but how much.

I do think they need to do something with the 645 line, Fuji has taken over the crop medium format sales and are putting money into development. I read or saw somewhere that Sony has stopped or has announced they will stop production of the 50mp sensor Pentax and Fuji use so they will have to either use the 102mp sensor or a new one if Sony is working on one.

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.

The 645Z is a great camera and is an affordable system to get into, I was able to get great condition lenses for cheap on eBay from Japan. I think they just need to make a few updates to it.

[UncleVanya]

Sony "35" was a reference to the Sony ff digital camera's with 24x36 mm sensors. Did this to separate them from a much larger ff medium format sensor.

Yes, sony makes a real close to ff sensor that Phase One and perhaps Hasselblad use. It won't be cheap. But adding moving sensors to crop camera's can't be either.

Thanks,
barondla

Thanks that clears up things.

[Alex645]

Personally as the owner of a 645 and 645N with many FF 645 lenses, I, too, would love to see a full frame digital 645. However the cost would be extremely high and IMO the current 645Z is not exactly lacking except for those seeking wider angles.

[Rondec]

I don't know. I think the addition of IBIS to a 645 body with astro tracer, composition adjustment, and pixel shift would still be a winner. Pentax's pixel shift is quite different from Fuji's and in my opinion is a better implementation. The issue with a full frame sensor is mostly cost. There is no way that Pentax can hit the seven or eight thousand dollar price tag with a full frame 645 sensor.

[btnapa]

IMO the current 645Z is not exactly lacking except for those seeking wider angles.

I agree.

[ProfessorBuzz]

Really the only game in town for large area CMOS sensors are Sony. So if you want to speculate, here's the relevant page:
Products?Image Sensor?Consumer Camera?products?Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group
The IMX461 and 411 are it.

[btnapa]

Pentax must go full frame with the 645 system.

My Pentaxian buddy and I have had this discussion many times. I suggested that If Pentax were to create a digital 6x7, they would own the medium format market. That was some 4-5 years ago. 645Z was hot at the time and the only "reasonably" priced medium format camera in the market. It could still happen. However, you need a sensor for that beast. Who is going to make the sensor for it, Sony, Toshiba, Samsung, Canon (not likely). More importantly, who is going to buy it and how many units can Pentax sell. For something like that to be successful, they have to sell a few thousand units. Let's not forget the need for new lenses too. The cost of R&D would be prohibitive.

I have watched Fuji slowly take over the medium format market. At this point, I think it is a forgone conclusion for Pentax. They had a lead and let it go. If I were an executive at Pentax and wanted to commit professional suicide, I would insist that we make a successor to the 645Z. It is unfortunate but as you know opportunity only knocks once.

[w2ck]

Hi,

The yields for the 150 MP part will be lower than for the 100 MP part. So not only is there a price increase for the size, there is a price increase due to the failing part cost. Based on pure speculation on my part (with some basis of my experience) and the initial price tag of the 645Z and Fuji GFX 100....I'd say $15k for a 150 MP 645 'X'. Maybe closer to $20k for stabilization parts. But, I can see a 150 MP unit being a tripod use unit and so no stabilization....

The model numbers I have assigned myself. the 100 MP 645 would be the 645Y and the 150 MP the 645X. :P

Stan

[SteveinSLC]

It's a nice idea, but I just don't see the ROI being there. The revenue side of things will be squeezed by Fuji, Hassleblad and Phase One, plus high megapixel FF cameras with pixelshift. So I doubt they'd sell many.

And the cost side will be huge. Not just the sensor itself, but the R&D, support, and need for new lenses. Someone buying a $30000 camera isn't going to accept having to send it to Japan for a month for repairs. Nor would most pros be OK with 30+ year old 6x7 and FF645 film lenses as the only choices.

I like my 645z. But I'm an amateur who sells a few prints here and there. The only reason I have one is that I got a good deal on the body and lenses are cheap. No way I or others like me could justify the cost of an FF645 body. So while you might gain a few folks, going way up market would really limit you to only serious pros with specific needs, pretty much where Phase One is now. That's not a very big market, and would require a big investment to be in.

[photoptimist]

Yes, 645FF is certainly a great way for Pentax to one-up Fuji on basic specs -- the Fuji body is utterly incapable of taking a 645FF sensor. Adding Pentax's IBIS technology to provide SR, pixelshift, composition adjustment, horizon leveling, and astrotracer would create a sweet true-medium-format digital camera.

I, too, think targetting pros is a mistake -- there's too few of them (especially these days), pros don't upgrade systems as quickly as wealthy enthusiasts do, and pros demand costly support. Pros just aren't a recipe for revenues or profits.

The one big challenge with 645FF is that the costs of the sensor will make a 645FF body significantly more expensive than the 645Z and Fuji offerings. Also, such a camera would not be that attractive for wildlife due to both the slower frame rates intrinsic to larger sensors and crop factor issues (a 600mm on 645FF is less than a 400mm equivalent on 35mm FF format).

That said, a 645FF+IBIS and a resurrected DFA 25mm would be an awesome combination.

[jatrax]

One theory generally accepted around the time of the 645z release was that when Ricoh acquired Pentax from Hoya one thing they acquired was a relatively large unsold inventory of 645 lenses. The release of the 645z was supposed to help clear out that inventory and turn it into cash. I theorize that either that has already happened and thus there is no longer an incentive to make a new 645 body, or it didn't happen and 645 has gone on to the heap of things Ricoh considers "tried and didn't work". Either way I suspect Pentax 645 is in the same category as Pentax Q. Not officially discontinued...........................

[ffking]

Phase One and Hasselblad have larger 53.4x40.0 sensors with 100mp and they cost $30,000 and up.

To be fair they cost that sort of figure when they had 50Mp sensors, didn't they?

The other thing, of course is that the newer 645 lenses were designed for the crop sensor so a FF would need all new (or all film era) lenses