If Ricoh can't keep medium format alive they should spin it off.

whwang · 07-27-2021, 08:03 PM - **3 Likes**

If your company controls both the camera and the lens, then the extra layer of glass may not be a problem. Telephotos with drop-in filters are designed in such a way that the filter glass is part of the optical formula, and using such lenses without a filter can degrade the optical quality. I can suspect that the cover glass in GFX cameras is factored in the lens design, as it sits right behind the rear lens elements.

And even with that cover glass (part of the optical design or not), Fuji lenses perform brilliantly. Fuji wide-angle lenses on GFX is way better than wide-angle lenses on 645z. Now I use my 645z exclusively for long focal lengths. For anything below 110mm, I go to GFX.

w2ck · 07-28-2021, 04:28 AM

Hi,

This isn't a new idea.

Kodak used swappable IR or AA filters, whichever you wanted to use, in front of the sensor on most of their models. Nikon, Canon, Blad, Contax, Mamiya. It worked out fine. On the 135 format bodies, the filter was just behind the lens mount and ahead of the mirror as part of the camera. On the MF models, it was right in front of the sensor as part of the back.

Stan

biz-engineer · 07-28-2021, 05:17 AM - **1 Like**

It's not only Pentax not putting enough efforts into medium format. IMO, the whole camera industry is running out of steam with their "no-real-advantage mirrorless full frame". The market for medium format digital should be developed further to make those MFD systems more popular and cheaper. Full frame should be presented as entry-level consumer format, and medium format digital should be the serious and professional choice, which in terms of image quality is the pretty much the truth. The best full frame digital systems of today with the best lenses just barely reach the quality are former professional film era quality. The fact that only Fuji seems to invest in this MFD market segment is just non sense.

SFTphotography · 07-28-2021, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

It's not only Pentax not putting enough efforts into medium format. IMO, the whole camera industry is running out of steam with their "no-real-advantage mirrorless full frame". The market for medium format digital should be developed further to make those MFD systems more popular and cheaper. Full frame should be presented as entry-level consumer format, and medium format digital should be the serious and professional choice, which in terms of image quality is the pretty much the truth. The best full frame digital systems of today with the best lenses just barely reach the quality are former professional film era quality. The fact that only Fuji seems to invest in this MFD market segment is just non sense.

That's how it always was. 35mm was always a bit of a toy camera/amateur snappers or journalistic portable format, and medium/large format really quite popular.

Now APSC, and APSC mirrorless fills that, and the bulk of amateur/pro's using full frame - which is just 35mm. In saying that, lens design and sensor resolution of these digital FF camera's exceeds 35mm film- which is really rubbish with nasty colours/grain and nasty low res even from a scan.

biz-engineer · 07-28-2021, 11:13 AM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by SFTphotography

Now APSC, and APSC mirrorless fills that, and the bulk of amateur/pro's using full frame - which is just 35mm. In saying that, lens design and sensor resolution of these digital FF camera's exceeds 35mm film- which is really rubbish with nasty colours/grain and nasty low res even from a scan.

Digital apsc now gives what full frame film was capable of. Digital full frame high resolution would roughly match 645 film. But there is no digital system able to match 4x5 low ISO film. Online can be found comparison of digital to 4x5 , it takes to stitch 20 digital frames to match a 4x5, drum scan makes a big difference. Ben horne shows a drum scan of an 8x10 film, to amount 700 Mpixels, no digital can match that in one exposure.

**Eric Auer** · 07-28-2021, 12:05 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by SFTphotography

That's how it always was. 35mm was always a bit of a toy camera/amateur snappers or journalistic portable format, and medium/large format really quite popular.

Now APSC, and APSC mirrorless fills that, and the bulk of amateur/pro's using full frame - which is just 35mm. In saying that, lens design and sensor resolution of these digital FF camera's exceeds 35mm film- which is really rubbish with nasty colours/grain and nasty low res even from a scan.

Hilarious.

Also BS.

The whole post.

**Eric Auer** · 07-28-2021, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Digital apsc now gives what full frame film was capable of. Digital full frame high resolution would roughly match 645 film. But there is no digital system able to match 4x5 low ISO film. Online can be found comparison of digital to 4x5 , it takes to stitch 20 digital frames to match a 4x5, drum scan makes a big difference. Ben horne shows a drum scan of an 8x10 film, to amount 700 Mpixels, no digital can match that in one exposure.

Digital "full frame" can be matched and bested by 35mm with the right gear.

The biggest hurdle is scanners.

As it is the only reason to scan film is to post on the net.

Printing is a whole different matter.

**barondla** · 07-28-2021, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

It's not only Pentax not putting enough efforts into medium format. IMO, the whole camera industry is running out of steam with their "no-real-advantage mirrorless full frame". The market for medium format digital should be developed further to make those MFD systems more popular and cheaper. Full frame should be presented as entry-level consumer format, and medium format digital should be the serious and professional choice, which in terms of image quality is the pretty much the truth. The best full frame digital systems of today with the best lenses just barely reach the quality are former professional film era quality. The fact that only Fuji seems to invest in this MFD market segment is just non sense.

To be fair, Hasselblad has brought out new MF bodies.

Thanks,
barondla

**TDvN57** · 07-28-2021, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by barondla

To be fair, Hasselblad has brought out new MF bodies.

Thanks,
barondla

Hasselblad = too much hassle

SFTphotography · 07-29-2021, 09:15 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by barondla

To be fair, Hasselblad has brought out new MF bodies.

Thanks,
barondla

I think they've got a Pixel shift of to create 400mp - which is someway off 700mp cited here for 10x8 film.

Never liked 35mm film, horrible gritty look when printed. Much prefer digital rendering. Now when it comes to larger film formats that is another thing altogether.

normhead · 07-29-2021, 10:04 AM

They'd essentially be selling the Pentax name. The 645z is now old enough to need complete redevelopment. At least Fuji and Pentax have developed ecosystems that allow using common components essentially subsidizing MF with APS-c and FF components. I do however have couple of 645 lenses waiting or the Pentax GFX 100s killer. Although I have no idea if the lenses would hold up to a GFX sensor.

**barondla** · 07-29-2021, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by SFTphotography

I think they've got a Pixel shift of to create 400mp - which is someway off 700mp cited here for 10x8 film.

Never liked 35mm film, horrible gritty look when printed. Much prefer digital rendering. Now when it comes to larger film formats that is another thing altogether.

Wasn't comparing Pixel Shift to film. I'm saying Fuji isn't the only one investing in MF. With the right film, say Kodachrome 25, Tech Pan, or Ektar 25 and top notch equipment and skill it can look very good. But, there is very little room for error. Like walking a tightrope.

Thanks,
barondla

**clackers** · 07-29-2021, 09:39 PM

I'm not sure any company is keen about the financial returns of medium format. Hasselblad couldn't make it work, and got bought by a Chinese drone manufacturer.

Canon, Nikon and Sony have had decades to come out with a medium format camera, and clearly their accountants said there was no satisfactory business case.

Fujifilm's digital cameras may be a drain on their finances, they're pivoting to health care, perhaps their GFX lines have propelled them into it: Fujifilm Pivoting to Healthcare, But Claims it Won't Abandon Photography | PetaPixel

biz-engineer · 07-30-2021, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by clackers

I'm not sure any company is keen about the financial returns of medium format. Hasselblad couldn't make it work, and got bought by a Chinese drone manufacturer.

Camera companies aren't the ones to blame. It's the low average expectation of photographers in the digital era that skewed the demand for large format systems. Today, the average camera user is happy with a smartphone because it's free. Back in the days when my grand parents and grand grand parents had their wedding photographed by a professional photographer, they were using large format cameras, they would never have accepted to pay for a picture of the quality that today comes out of an iPhone. In the digital age, people have gotten used to convenience and immediacy over quality, which now forms the new baseline of image quality expectations.

**clackers** · 07-30-2021, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by biz-engineer

Camera companies aren't the ones to blame. It's the low average expectation of photographers in the digital era that skewed the demand for large format systems. Today, the average camera user is happy with a smartphone because it's free. Back in the days when my grand parents and grand grand parents had their wedding photographed by a professional photographer, they were using large format cameras, they would never have accepted to pay for a picture of the quality that today comes out of an iPhone. In the digital age, people have gotten used to convenience and immediacy over quality, which now forms the new baseline of image quality expectations.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

It's a shame.

Like I've said before, a 645Z kit would be my dream system.

07-29-2021, 09:39 PM	#118
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	I'm not sure any company is keen about the financial returns of medium format. Hasselblad couldn't make it work, and got bought by a Chinese drone manufacturer. Canon, Nikon and Sony have had decades to come out with a medium format camera, and clearly their accountants said there was no satisfactory business case. Fujifilm's digital cameras may be a drain on their finances, they're pivoting to health care, perhaps their GFX lines have propelled them into it: Fujifilm Pivoting to Healthcare, But Claims it Won't Abandon Photography \| PetaPixel Last edited by clackers; 07-29-2021 at 09:51 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vecnos - A new Ricoh spin-off brand for 360 cameras	JPT	Pentax News and Rumors	93	03-19-2022 12:51 AM
Post your non-pentax medium-format and large-format pictures	DenisG	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	26	12-07-2020 08:02 PM
Should they stay or should they go? Some of my lenses that is.	jboyde	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	07-30-2009 01:21 PM
Keep-alive-message from Gernany	kozlowsky	Welcomes and Introductions	3	01-30-2009 03:30 PM

07-27-2021, 08:03 PM - 3 Likes	#106
whwang Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 84	If your company controls both the camera and the lens, then the extra layer of glass may not be a problem. Telephotos with drop-in filters are designed in such a way that the filter glass is part of the optical formula, and using such lenses without a filter can degrade the optical quality. I can suspect that the cover glass in GFX cameras is factored in the lens design, as it sits right behind the rear lens elements. And even with that cover glass (part of the optical design or not), Fuji lenses perform brilliantly. Fuji wide-angle lenses on GFX is way better than wide-angle lenses on 645z. Now I use my 645z exclusively for long focal lengths. For anything below 110mm, I go to GFX.

07-28-2021, 04:28 AM	#107
w2ck Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: Raleigh, NC Photos: Albums Posts: 442	Hi, This isn't a new idea. Kodak used swappable IR or AA filters, whichever you wanted to use, in front of the sensor on most of their models. Nikon, Canon, Blad, Contax, Mamiya. It worked out fine. On the 135 format bodies, the filter was just behind the lens mount and ahead of the mirror as part of the camera. On the MF models, it was right in front of the sensor as part of the back. Stan

07-28-2021, 05:17 AM - 1 Like	#108
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	It's not only Pentax not putting enough efforts into medium format. IMO, the whole camera industry is running out of steam with their "no-real-advantage mirrorless full frame". The market for medium format digital should be developed further to make those MFD systems more popular and cheaper. Full frame should be presented as entry-level consumer format, and medium format digital should be the serious and professional choice, which in terms of image quality is the pretty much the truth. The best full frame digital systems of today with the best lenses just barely reach the quality are former professional film era quality. The fact that only Fuji seems to invest in this MFD market segment is just non sense.

07-28-2021, 10:00 AM	#109
SFTphotography Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Location: Scotland Posts: 291	Originally posted by biz-engineer It's not only Pentax not putting enough efforts into medium format. IMO, the whole camera industry is running out of steam with their "no-real-advantage mirrorless full frame". The market for medium format digital should be developed further to make those MFD systems more popular and cheaper. Full frame should be presented as entry-level consumer format, and medium format digital should be the serious and professional choice, which in terms of image quality is the pretty much the truth. The best full frame digital systems of today with the best lenses just barely reach the quality are former professional film era quality. The fact that only Fuji seems to invest in this MFD market segment is just non sense. That's how it always was. 35mm was always a bit of a toy camera/amateur snappers or journalistic portable format, and medium/large format really quite popular. Now APSC, and APSC mirrorless fills that, and the bulk of amateur/pro's using full frame - which is just 35mm. In saying that, lens design and sensor resolution of these digital FF camera's exceeds 35mm film- which is really rubbish with nasty colours/grain and nasty low res even from a scan.

07-28-2021, 11:13 AM - 2 Likes	#110
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by SFTphotography Now APSC, and APSC mirrorless fills that, and the bulk of amateur/pro's using full frame - which is just 35mm. In saying that, lens design and sensor resolution of these digital FF camera's exceeds 35mm film- which is really rubbish with nasty colours/grain and nasty low res even from a scan. Digital apsc now gives what full frame film was capable of. Digital full frame high resolution would roughly match 645 film. But there is no digital system able to match 4x5 low ISO film. Online can be found comparison of digital to 4x5 , it takes to stitch 20 digital frames to match a 4x5, drum scan makes a big difference. Ben horne shows a drum scan of an 8x10 film, to amount 700 Mpixels, no digital can match that in one exposure.

07-28-2021, 12:05 PM - 2 Likes	#111
Eric Auer Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	Originally posted by SFTphotography That's how it always was. 35mm was always a bit of a toy camera/amateur snappers or journalistic portable format, and medium/large format really quite popular. Now APSC, and APSC mirrorless fills that, and the bulk of amateur/pro's using full frame - which is just 35mm. In saying that, lens design and sensor resolution of these digital FF camera's exceeds 35mm film- which is really rubbish with nasty colours/grain and nasty low res even from a scan. Hilarious. Also BS. The whole post.

07-28-2021, 12:13 PM	#112
Eric Auer Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2012 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,211	Originally posted by biz-engineer Digital apsc now gives what full frame film was capable of. Digital full frame high resolution would roughly match 645 film. But there is no digital system able to match 4x5 low ISO film. Online can be found comparison of digital to 4x5 , it takes to stitch 20 digital frames to match a 4x5, drum scan makes a big difference. Ben horne shows a drum scan of an 8x10 film, to amount 700 Mpixels, no digital can match that in one exposure. Digital "full frame" can be matched and bested by 35mm with the right gear. The biggest hurdle is scanners. As it is the only reason to scan film is to post on the net. Printing is a whole different matter.

07-28-2021, 12:50 PM	#113
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	Originally posted by biz-engineer It's not only Pentax not putting enough efforts into medium format. IMO, the whole camera industry is running out of steam with their "no-real-advantage mirrorless full frame". The market for medium format digital should be developed further to make those MFD systems more popular and cheaper. Full frame should be presented as entry-level consumer format, and medium format digital should be the serious and professional choice, which in terms of image quality is the pretty much the truth. The best full frame digital systems of today with the best lenses just barely reach the quality are former professional film era quality. The fact that only Fuji seems to invest in this MFD market segment is just non sense. To be fair, Hasselblad has brought out new MF bodies. Thanks, barondla

07-28-2021, 03:01 PM	#114
TDvN57 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Berlin Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,149	Originally posted by barondla To be fair, Hasselblad has brought out new MF bodies. Thanks, barondla Hasselblad = too much hassle

07-29-2021, 09:15 AM - 1 Like	#115
SFTphotography Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2021 Location: Scotland Posts: 291	Originally posted by barondla To be fair, Hasselblad has brought out new MF bodies. Thanks, barondla I think they've got a Pixel shift of to create 400mp - which is someway off 700mp cited here for 10x8 film. Never liked 35mm film, horrible gritty look when printed. Much prefer digital rendering. Now when it comes to larger film formats that is another thing altogether.

07-29-2021, 10:04 AM	#116
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	They'd essentially be selling the Pentax name. The 645z is now old enough to need complete redevelopment. At least Fuji and Pentax have developed ecosystems that allow using common components essentially subsidizing MF with APS-c and FF components. I do however have couple of 645 lenses waiting or the Pentax GFX 100s killer. Although I have no idea if the lenses would hold up to a GFX sensor.

07-29-2021, 10:06 AM	#117
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714 Original Poster	Originally posted by SFTphotography I think they've got a Pixel shift of to create 400mp - which is someway off 700mp cited here for 10x8 film. Never liked 35mm film, horrible gritty look when printed. Much prefer digital rendering. Now when it comes to larger film formats that is another thing altogether. Wasn't comparing Pixel Shift to film. I'm saying Fuji isn't the only one investing in MF. With the right film, say Kodachrome 25, Tech Pan, or Ektar 25 and top notch equipment and skill it can look very good. But, there is very little room for error. Like walking a tightrope. Thanks, barondla

07-30-2021, 03:35 AM	#119
biz-engineer Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2015 Photos: Gallery Posts: 12,231	Originally posted by clackers I'm not sure any company is keen about the financial returns of medium format. Hasselblad couldn't make it work, and got bought by a Chinese drone manufacturer. Camera companies aren't the ones to blame. It's the low average expectation of photographers in the digital era that skewed the demand for large format systems. Today, the average camera user is happy with a smartphone because it's free. Back in the days when my grand parents and grand grand parents had their wedding photographed by a professional photographer, they were using large format cameras, they would never have accepted to pay for a picture of the quality that today comes out of an iPhone. In the digital age, people have gotten used to convenience and immediacy over quality, which now forms the new baseline of image quality expectations.

07-30-2021, 04:16 AM	#120
clackers Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Melbourne Photos: Albums Posts: 16,397	Originally posted by biz-engineer Camera companies aren't the ones to blame. It's the low average expectation of photographers in the digital era that skewed the demand for large format systems. Today, the average camera user is happy with a smartphone because it's free. Back in the days when my grand parents and grand grand parents had their wedding photographed by a professional photographer, they were using large format cameras, they would never have accepted to pay for a picture of the quality that today comes out of an iPhone. In the digital age, people have gotten used to convenience and immediacy over quality, which now forms the new baseline of image quality expectations. Yes, I agree with all of that. It's a shame. Like I've said before, a 645Z kit would be my dream system.