[texandrews]

It's not just the cost of the larger sensor. It's the cost of developing everything else around it. And that cost needs to be offset by likely much lower sales numbers, meaning much higher per unit price.

Probably true...but somehow weirdly Pentax has gotten tons of bang for the buck out of their cameras. The 645D was the first medium format digital camera not to cost as much as a house, and then 4 years later the much more advanced Z was $1,500 cheaper. But I would expect a (much) more advanced camera than the Z to be in the $8-$10K range---or, one with some significant but not earth shaking improvements to be in the $6K-ish range.

Plus how many of the modern Pentax lenses will support FF 645? Would buyers be willing just to use older MF lenses?

Well, I would, as a 7 year user of a Z who has 14 lenses for it. I think this is an argument that is very overstated for several reasons:

1. No one knows how any of the Pentax lenses will perform on a FF digital 645 sensor.
2. There's no bench testing of them even on the current sensor!
3. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Would they be perfect? probably not, with some performing less well than others. Would that mean tossing away the other goodness you'd get from a FF sensor because the lenses don't perform absolutely optimally? Well, not for me!

[zjacreman]

I've been incredibly impressed with the old FA lenses on the 645Z. Big, heavy D-FA replacements were mostly not necessary so I can see why Pentax didn't invest in them.

Would they be perfect? probably not, with some performing less well than others.

My understanding is that this is pretty much true of the 'blad and Phase One/Mamiya DSLR lenses too. The bigger your sensor, the less important it is that the lens is incredibly optically perfect. And the professionals who shoot that stuff don't pixel peep wide open performance to death.

[SFTphotography]

I've been incredibly impressed with the old FA lenses on the 645Z. Big, heavy D-FA replacements were mostly not necessary so I can see why Pentax didn't invest in them.

Depends - I think the 28-45 really sings. The 80-160 and 45-85 are good but not at their long ends, for some reason both these are their longer ends fall apart with soft edges etc - and that's on a crop 645z. Not sure what the rest of the image circle looks like if that's visible on a crop 4:3 shaped sensor. I noticed a slight softening on my 200F4 on the frame edge - and again suprised as that's designed for a larger image circle. Not fussed hugely as it cost literally £160. The 28-45 is sharp everywhere, at every FL.

My understanding is that this is pretty much true of the 'blad and Phase One/Mamiya DSLR lenses too. The bigger your sensor, the less important it is that the lens is incredibly optically perfect. And the professionals who shoot that stuff don't pixel peep wide open performance to death.

It comes down to Pixel pitch - and the 150mp FF sensor has the same pixel pitch as the 100mp crop MF sensor and 35mm A7RiV - so I expect the older lenses, potentially, may struggle a bit - particularly in the sides which the crop sensors helpful cut off.

And I wouldn't object to buying newer, more expensive versions with weather sealing. The old lenses are great, but a few longer zooms in the mould of the 28-45 would be a landscape shooters dream.

[barondla]

When Pentax builds the FF 645 body people will follow. Look at the sales of the Fujifilm 100mp. They can't keep up with demand. Once the new body rejuvenates profits and the system, new lenses will follow. Pentax's major error was not refreshing the 645 system along the way.

Sharpness isn't the only reason to buy MF. MF has other advantages. Look at all the 35mm FF photographers using ancient lenses and even Lensbabys. Art isn't just one look and isn't solely married to a MTF chart.

People have no problem spending this kind of money for Leica equipment.

Thanks,
barondla

[zjacreman]

I think the 28-45 really sings

Sure, the D-FAs are great, and wide angle was a gap that needed to be filled. I will admit, if they came out with a long D-FA zoom, I'd probably buy it. The FA 150-300 is just OK (or my copy is) and I use that range a lot for landscapes.

so I expect the older lenses, potentially, may struggle a bit - particularly in the sides which the crop sensors helpful cut off.

The Hasselblad H system is essentially of the same vintage, though, and originally designed for film like Pentax FA. Ming Thein's assessment of those lenses (Mid term assessment of Hasselblad H lenses (UPDATED 29/5) ? Ming Thein | Photographer) is... pretty close to my assessment of the Pentax equivalents, where I've got overlapping experience. I like the 35 and 75 more than he likes the 'blad 35 and 80. And 'blad didn't have any problem going full frame high res. So I don't think there's any reason to assume ahead of time that Pentax would perform any worse.

New lenses would be awesome but I think for a lot of the range not totally necessary.

[TDvN57]

If technically feasible: an option would be with a full frame 645 150mpx sensor, to add video at full sensor size to match IMAX film which is 65mm wide.

Granted the processor would have to be powerful and probably too big for the format, however it only needs to provide 30fps raw output to an external recorder to get major attention from the high end pro market.

Such a move will put Pentax on a different level and raise the bar, substantially, even if the mpx are binned to create a lower pixel count. For example a lot of Sony's high end 4k+ cameras use sensors between 12mpx and 20mpx.

Harvesting the image from the full sensor real estate and with pixel binning, the image will retain the IMAX medium format look with exceptional results.

Just a thought....

.

[Pål Jensen]

When Pentax builds the FF 645 body people will follow. Look at the sales of the Fujifilm 100mp. They can't keep up with demand. Once the new body rejuvenates profits and the system, new lenses will follow. Pentax's major error was not refreshing the 645 system along the way.

I don't think it is an error. These cameras have long life spans. Pentax is waiting until the technology making an upgrade worthwhile are available. Same issue as with the K-3; a while without a replacement...

[barondla]

I don't think it is an error. These cameras have long life spans. Pentax is waiting until the technology making an upgrade worthwhile are available. Same issue as with the K-3; a while without a replacement...

Agree on the bodies. The error was in rarely refreshing the lenses. All of the FA lenses could have at least had updated coatings and rounded aperture blades - like they just got around to doing for the Limiteds. Then people would have a little more reason to buy new vs cheap used.

Even the Z body could have had minor updates while keeping the sensor the same. I would love for my Z to have screen that also flipped vertically. There is more to a camera than the sensor.
Thanks,
barondla