It's really easy to get lost in the speculation of what will or won't happen. Here's what I know, and this is profoundly true for all the medium-format digital camera makers: If the cameras don't sell well enough, they will be discontinued. This is true no matter what they say. Fuji has been more than willing to exercise that option in the past, both with cameras and with film. Hasselblad was actually a holdout, as was Leica, but both have repositioned themselves as making what look to me like fetish items for the very wealthy amateur. Fuji and Pentax are both targeting more of a pro market, but let's face it, the bulk of both will be sold to amateurs who are perhaps not as well-heeled as those targeted by H and L.
The problem with digital is the same as the problem with desktop computers back in the 80's. The technology has this appearance of moving so fast that we can become paralyzed. But now only gamers worry about technology in home PC's--most just buy something and it works.
We see a camera like the 645z and we think it's grossly out of date simply because it happens to be four years old. This is insanity. I just upgraded my Canon 5D--made in 2005, to a Canon 5DII, made in 2009. Yes, newer cameras do more stuff, maybe, but I have shot weddings on that 5D without it ever once making me sorry I had it. I upgraded simply because I had run into a situation where I needed a bit more resolution.
Digital cameras will not have that longevity, of course. Battery technologies are the worst of it, I think. How long will I be able to get Canon BP511 batteries for the old 5D (the 5DII uses different batteries, about which I was not that happy, to be honest). But Canon is still making them all available, despite being somewhat undercut by the third-party industry. Another aspect of sustainability is the availability in the secondary market of stuff that attaches to it. Here, Pentax rules the earth, unless you want to adapt stuff. Zillions of 645 lenses were made back when 645 was the standard portable commercial format. These lenses are all quite competent, and in return for not being absolutely state of the art, they are cheap and easy to get. Hasselblad lenses can be adapted to the Hasselblad X1, I suppose, and there are possibly adaptations that can be made with the Fuji. In the case of the Hasselblad, one does not get the same level of integrate one gets from a Pentax FA lens from the 90's. Even the modern autofocus versions of most Pentax lenses are cheap by medium-format standards. What this means is that 20 years from now, if I can get batteries, and if I have a computer that can read the files, I can still make photographs as good as the ones I can make today.
Do I really care if Pentax never has a successor? No.
Back not that long ago, 4x5 camera equipment was either targeted to amateurs and cheap, or targeted to professionals and expensive. I owned a Calumet 4x5 camera that was in the former category. It was perfectly competent, but it was unpleasant to use. Also, it would not let me use the short lenses I wanted to use. So, I bought a Cambo SC--also targeted to amateurs, though of much newer and more modular design. I made photos with that for about 15 years. Then, about 15 years ago, pros were suddenly abandoning high-end large-format cameras. So, I bought a Sinar F, and then upgraded that to an F2 (for very specific reasons, by the way). That camera was a joy to use compared to the Cambo. I paid less in the early 2000's for that Sinar than I paid in the 80's for that Cambo, buying both pre-owned. A few weeks ago, I came across a Sinar P--their high-end model from the early 70's--for less than what I paid for the F. I bought it mostly because it was so modularly interchangeable with my F2 that it could seemless integrate into my photography. Every lens I have bought for large format has been old, or at least pre-owned, until the market tanked and I could get newer stuff for cheap. So, the question for me is: Is Sinar a long-term company supporting 4x5 large format film photography? NO. It has been done with film for many years, and their current (eye-wateringly expensive) camera is targeted to digital backs. But owning a Sinar is sustainable for many years to come--there are lots of them, and lots of the things they need will continue to be traded back and forth by their owners.
The 645z is a great camera. At some point, it will no longer be the best camera, but it will always be a great camera. For its foreseeable lifespan, there will be batteries, memory cards, and lenses that can be easily obtained. For its foreseeable lifespan, software will support it, even if it's not Pentax software. Even if Pentax abandons the 645 market altogether, the 645z will still be a great camera, and photographers will mourn its passing.
My Pentax 67's are at greater risk than the 645z--I depend on a now-old Nikon scanner to scan the negatives. If that fails, I may be figuring it out with the 645z and the 120mm Macro. But for now those cameras are decades old and still completely usable as intended. And they still make great photos.
So, my advice is the same it was in the 80's for computers: Buy a current model late in its model cycle to get the best prices (or buy used), and then use it. I didn't get the 645z until this year. I'm glad that doesn't invalidate the photos I made last year.
Rick "digital cameras are not throwaway cameras just because there are technological improvements" Denney
