it is here... Pentax 645D

<p>When they announced in 2008 that they weren't going to put it out I sold the 4 fantastic Pentax lenses I had been holding onto waiting for this thing to appear. Drag!</p>

<p>645d uses 645 lenses. What the hell else are you going to call it??? Can you suggest a better way of making it obvious to people with 645 lenses that this is the digital MF for them? How is this then remotely misleading?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>HUGE MISNOMER of "645D." The sensor isn't even close to 645. It's way smaller. It's too bad they are trying to mislead people.</p>

</blockquote>

Not a Pentax fan, but I got to admit the hit the nail on the button with this camera. Of course there is no such thing as the perfect camera, but Pentax put allot of thought and work into this. Congradulations Pentax !

<p>I'll buy one as soon as it hits the street. The price point is perfect for what it does/is. I also have two pro Canon DSLRs (1DM3 and 5DM2) and I love both. This is just another great camera to love. I get MF and save $30k over the price of an HD4.</p>

<p>I wonder what other lenses Pentax will release to go with this? Perhaps a 25mm prime, or a 25-55mm zoom?</p>

<p>It would also be really nice if they produced a dedicated shift lens for the 645, perhaps around a 35mm focal length. It would seem that the 645D is potentially ideal for architectural photography.</p>

<p>50,000 is a very low number.<br />In a year having, say 40 working weeks (12 weeks of vacation!), working 5 days a week, that's a lousy 250 exposures per day.<br />If that is all the camera can do, you need to buy a fresh one at least once a year.</p>

<p>So it's blatantly obvious that it is intended to be an amateur camera, not in the league of other offerings. Except, that is, as far as the money you have to pay for it is concerned.</p>

<p>Not having a resolution limiting (i.e. soft focus) anti-alias filter is a good thing.<br />But don't break out the champagne yet. Due to the colour-grid, the resolution is still very much lower than what is suggested.<br />(And when will people understand that even the worst lenses resolve more than enough to satisfy the resolution of even the best digital sensors available today, and tomorrow?)</p>

<p>There are lots of photographers that expose more frames than I do. But I'm still not at all convinced that I'd buy something that might require the shutter to be replaced after a few years service. </p>

<p>Yes, that 50K frame count represents shutter life, and shutters are relatively cheap--so long as Pentax has a service center with quick turnaround to replace them.<br>

Bigger problem for the pro contemplating Pentax is the lack of pro support services, leasing, loaners, availability of the top performing lenses.</p>

<p><em>50,000 is a very low number.<br /> In a year having, say 40 working weeks (12 weeks of vacation!), working 5 days a week, that's a lousy 250 exposures per day</em> .<br>

A ridiculous comment. If you are working that steadily as a photographer and can afford twelve weeks of vacation, you can afford a shutter replacement or a new camera. I would guess the projected 50K shutter life is extremely conservative.</p>

<p>I too expect that 50,000 is a very conservative estimate.<br>

But the figures are far from ridiculous. Especially not when you consider that you probably can't take 12 weeks vacation, i.e. shoot more.</p>

<p>What i, in turn, find ridiculous is that silly "if you earn money, you can afford to throw it away" type argument.<br>

No, you can't.<br>

Only fools and the filthy rich throw money away. Normal people don't. So asking us to put that amount of money towards a camera that will not last even a year (assuming the number is a hard, correct one) is idiotic.</p>

 

<p>[Deleted double post]</p>

<p>I'm sorry, you're the one being ridiculous. If you are shooting that much, you are in the business. If you're shooting that much you either have sufficient cash flow to own and service your tools or you're undercharging and should get out of the business. Chances are very good that the 645D will typically last 100 to 150 K shutter cycles, far more than my 'professional' Fuji G617 shutter. And assuming, as even you agree, that the 50K number is conservative, is it asking too much to spend a few hundred dollars for maintenance every year or more likely, two or three. It's the cost of doing business and as others have pointed out, other cameras in this category have similar specs for shutter life.</p>

 

<p>Repeating that bit of silliness does not make it any less silly.</p>

<p>The shutter life cycle for "professional" cameras is typically in the 200,000 to 300,000 range. And those figures are conservative too.</p>

<p>Any way you look at it, if those figures are to be believed (with and without allowing for being conservative), it does not look good.</p>

<p>The shutter argument is ridiculous. 50K (250 shots per work day!) is not low for this type of camera. Let's be realistic here. How many people are going to buy this camera and put 250 shots on it per day?</p>

<p>A 1D mkIV, OK. A MF digital? Please.</p>

<p><em>"How many people are going to buy this camera and put 250 shots on it per day?"</em></p>

<p>Given that ridiculously low shutter life expectancy, not many.</p>

 

 

<p><em>"How many people are going to buy this camera and put 250 shots on it per day?"</em><br>

<em>Given that ridiculously low shutter life expectancy, not many.</em></p>

<p>The percentage of buyers who make buying decisions based on shutter life cycles is very small. Professional photographers plan for maintenance, backup cameras/systems or systems targeted for specific applications, such as the Pentax 645D (landscape not studio). Any so-called professional photographer who purchases a single camera and expects it to last a lifetime without maintenance is an ignorant, uninformed fool.<em><br /> </em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Mike MacDonald wrote:<br>

They are completely misleading people. The size is midway between a 35mm full frame camera and a 645. Why not call it a full frame 35mm, then, and be modest. Call it what it is. Leica didn't lie about it with the S2. It's the principle.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The size of the exposed film negative for a 645 camera is 56x42 mm, as I suppose you know if you're a regular of the MF forum. Should film cameras be called "5642" instead? Maybe the digital MF sensors should be called APS-J or something like that, but if all previous MF manufacturers have been calling their cropped sensors "645", then why should Pentax enter the market calling theirs "4433"? Especially since other cameras with the same Kodak sensor are being sold as "645". This is not Pentax's problem, this is an industry problem.</p>

<p>And I side with whoever said that nobody buying this camera is going to be "duped" because it's not full-frame 645. You don't spend $10k on medium format unless you know what you're doing and know what you're buying.<br /> </p>

<p><em>"Any so-called professional photographer who purchases a single camera and expects it to last a lifetime without maintenance is an ignorant, uninformed fool."</em></p>

<p>Very true.<br />And anyone who mistakes less than a year for a lifetime has even more serious problems.<br />If that is because of some medical problems, my sympathies. Else, there you have your ignorant uninformed fool.</p>

<p>Planning for scheduled maintenance begins with not buying products that need scheduled maintenance excessively often.<br>

You can get comparable, and better, products that are better in this respect as well.</p>

 

<p >The 645D is of particular interest to me since I have many Pentax MF lenses and have been following the development of the 645D since I was a young man:). The significance of the shutter life is, in part, dependant on the cost of replacement. That said, Pentax stated that this camera is aimed at amateurs, particularly those who enjoy landscape photography. That describes me and, I suspect, many others perfectly. I haven’t taken 50,000 exposures in 30 years of film photography. This is not the camera for people who need 8 frames per second and fast auto focus and who then spend hours editing the thousand exposures made in one day. Canon rates the 5D shutter at 100,000 exposures, but to achieve the resolution of the 645D with a 5D would require the stitching of at least four exposures, yielding an effective shutter life of 25,000 – and you have to do all that stitching and hope that nothing moves.</p>

<p >Even if the 645D died after 50,000 exposures the cost (based on $8500 for the body) is about 17 cents/exposure – much less than I currently spend on film. Looks like a winner to me, but then I’m the audience aimed at.</p>

<p>Just an interesting bit of math if one were to attempt to "machine gun" both cameras to shutter failure and assuming that they don't overheat or something...</p>

<p>Canon 1D MKIV shutter life = 300,000 frames<br>

Canon 1D MKIV framerate = 10 frames / second<br>

Amount of time before expected failure = 300,000 / 10 = 30,000 seconds or appx 8.3 hours</p>

<p>Pentax 645D shutter life = 50,000 frames<br>

Pentax 645D framerate = 1.1 frames / second<br>

Amount of time before expected failure = 50,000 / 1.1 = 45454.54 seconds or appx 12.6 hours</p>

<p>In all fairness, this kind of comparison doesn't really mean much. What is important is the use that the camera will see. I seriously doubt that any potential 645D owner would use the machine gun technique that the above failure comparison relies upon.</p>

<p><em>You can get comparable, and better, products that are better in this respect as well</em> .</p>

<p>Where? I don't know of any other announced digital MF cameras in the $10K range. Certainly NOT Hasselblad or Mamiya. One could purchase four Pentax systems for the price of one Hasselblad system and have three backups in the event of failure.</p>

<p>As for longevity, a worse case 50K shutter life is likely to last a landscape photographer a lifetime.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> a worse case 50K shutter life is likely to last a landscape photographer a lifetime.</p>

<p>Rubbish. You really don't have much of a clue about how photographers actually behave, do you?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Rubbish. You really don't have much of a clue about how photographers actually behave, do you?</em></p>

<p>Indeed I do. I've been doing nothing but travel, landscape and stock photography for 22 years, likely as long or longer than you. I shoot LF, MF, digital, depending on the need/desire of the client/agency. I've carried 72 lb backpacks loaded with camera gear on week long solo treks. I know very well what is required to get the shot and what is required of the gear. Do you?<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Yes, better than you from the sound of it. If your lifetime of photography can be covered by 50 000 digital images then you really are not shooting very much. </p>

<p>My, this thread has gotten off topic and nasty. No need for <em>ad hominem</em> attacks. As I stated earlier the 645D seems ideal for an amateur like me. Why is inconceivable that not everyone needs hundreds of exposures per day?<br>

For anyone still reading this thread, I suggest you visit David Henderson’s web page. He might be a bit harsh on the forums, but he’s an outstanding photographer. David, that is a remarkable collection of images you have. I was particularly impressed with the uniform color palette in all the images – saturated, yet muted. I'd love for you to explain your method. The gallery reminded me of Kodachromes on a light table.<br>

I enjoyed your picture of the Louvre. I was there on a similar evening (a little too late), attempting a similar shot from the inside of the pyramid – didn’t work.</p><div></div>