Pentax 645D is here ! ! !

[mountainvisions]

<p>Ah John, you've never been a fan of Pentax medium format, why would that change with digital.</p>

<p>As far as your dislike for Pentax MF, makes no sense, you comment that it was popular because it was cheap. I disagree, it was popular because it was priced fairly and the IQ (lenses) and ergonomics of the bodies were superior dollar for dollar.</p>

<p>As far as the size benefit, that too!</p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks, Justin. I am aware of the LS lenses but there are only a few (3?) lenses, and none of them are the ones I already own for 645N or appear to be particularly common on the used market.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, they were pretty available on the used market. I was tempted mainly because the price was actually lower. However, I'm not disagreeing with the bump in sync speed, it's definitely a good thing. But compared to leaf shutters most mechanical syncs looks slow, and the leaf lenses being an option is a huge option in my opinion.</p>

<p>As far as the HSS, I don't share the same love for it everyone else does. It's a gimmick to me. Kinda like ISO based SR, only slightly more useful (ever so slightly).</p>

<p> </p>

[yuri_huta]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Featured Comment </strong> by <strong>Ned Bunnell, President of Pentax USA:</strong> "The 645D will initially be available only in Japan. Right now, we have no firm plans to bring this camera to the U.S. However, we are evaluating the type of sales and support program that would be required to ensure the 645D’s success in our market."</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/03/vapor-no-more-the-pentax-645d-debuts-in-japan.html#comments">http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/03/vapor-no-more-the-pentax-645d-debuts-in-japan.html#comments</a></p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>While Ned's quote is kinda hedgy (in <em>Dilbert</em> they'd be called weasel words), I want to believe that the Pentax people have most of these needs figured out by now. Within a product development lifecycle, support and sustainment requirements <em>should</em> be known early on. This information should really feed the go/no-go decision for the product itself.</p>

<p>Granted there's been a change in Pentax ownership, but that was over a year ago. Plus, the 645D has been in development for years, with the core concept unchanging. Surely a few dozen posters from within PNet alone could enunciate and validate support requirements for the 645D.</p>

<p>My guess is that budget is the major constraint here. Perhaps Hoya is hoping to capitalize early Japan-based sales towards a fuller support program elsewhere. Just makes me wonder who the intended market in Japan is and how it can be counted on to be isolated in a global consumer economy?</p>

<p>ME</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>ME,</p>

<p>I agree, and for those saying that "well I can buy a Japan model and import it." That is true, and will work for a few users here and there, but most people dropping $7999 (i think if it hit the US it wouldn't be a straight up Yen=$ exchange) would want pro support.</p>

<p>And since the majority of people buying this wouldn't ultimately be hobbyist, this level of support would be required for long term sales. That is even if it's competitively priced against the Canon 1Ds or Nikon D3X if it lacked the pro support system it would be doomed to fail.</p>

<p> </p>

[rparmar]

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3855863">Jonathan Rush</a> wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I guess shake reduction isn't a selling point in this market?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Besides the fact that this is not a camera designed for low-light hand-held shooting, the heft of the body means that SR does not accrue the same benefits. The smaller the body, the more you need SR. I have had no real problem getting sharp shots with my 645N even though I can't say I am great at holding a camera still.</p>

 

[miserere_mei]

<p>For those that were wondering about screwdrive auto-focus, <a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/354/026/html/pentax_07.jpg.html">this photo</a> confirms that older FA lenses <em>will</em> auto-focus with the new 645D.</p>

<p>And talking about lenses, have you seen <a href="http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/img/dcw/docs/354/026/html/pentax_30.jpg.html">this pic</a> of the "645D Lens Lineup"? I'm not sure I believe it :-)</p>

[shaloot]

<p>Wow what is going on in the bottom row?! What is that white whale? I don't believe the picture; it's not in English so there :P</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>Someone on PF claimed that the 645D felt as light as a K10D w/ the 50/1.4. I'll bet SR doesn't work well w/ a huge sensor like that...</p>

 

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>That telephoto lens is huge! It's hard to guess what it is based on such a photo, but does it look as large as those K mounts that DaveH has?</p>

[jtk]

<p>The competition:<br>

<a href="http://www.mamiya.com/dm-series-digital-backs.html">http://www.mamiya.com/dm-series-digital-backs.html</a><br>

Mamiya has a far larger installed base, far more lenses, especially when you consider the RBs and 645s going back into pre-history. Many could get excited about a Mamiya 7D (feather weight mf rangefinder with ultimate optics).</p>

<p>Yes, of course there were arguments FOR Pentax 645 (and not just cheapness), as cited above, but there are arguments FOR everything pros buy, even Sigma DSLRs.. surely Pentax wouldn't bet it's MF marketing Yen on <em>hobbiests</em>...would it?</p>

<p>More than MF, I do wish my K20D would be followed by something more appealing than K7, whether or not it uses my primes. As I've said before, I think Pentax is better positioned to compete with Leica rangefinders than it is to compete with pro-priced DSLRs, especially given that MF digitals have proven so often wasteful business-wise: Few clients are ever going to be as impressed by a photographer's latest toy as by his photographs, and MF digital can't improve images. Top tier pro clients pay for images, not to be wowed by a photographer's acquisitions.</p>

<p> </p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<p>surely Pentax wouldn't bet it's MF marketing Yen on <em>hobbiests</em> ...would it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>John, who do you think keeps the camera industry afloat? Hint: It's not the pros.</p>

[yuri_huta]

<blockquote>

<p>Wow what is going on in the bottom row?! What is that white whale?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the bottom row (from left to right) are:<br /> 645 FA 150-300mm f/5.6 (notice two matte black bands - one for zoom, one for focus)<br /> 645 FA 300mm f/4 (the gold ring gives this one up)<br /> 645 FA 400mm f/5.6<br /> 645 A 600mm f/5.6</p>

[mountainvisions]

The 645n is only slightly bigger based on surface area to the K10d, and by slightly I mean barely bigger, as in insignificantly.the different shape makes it seem MUCH bigger.

 

 

 

With 6 AA lithiums (no worries about killing the environment, you get hundreds of rolls). It weights about 10oz more. Significant? Yep, but its all mechanical and once you gut the mechanics it should shave a few ounces, making it close to the K10d in both size and weight.

 

 

 

 

John,

 

 

 

Your statements often conflict. Are you telling me images from. 40mp sensor will not exceed images from a 10-20MP sensor?

 

 

 

All along you have been saying that small format is amateur, now you are saying format is irrelevant. I agree it is irrevelant, but that doesn't mean that for certain uses bigger formats aren't better. If they weren't we would all be using 1/2.3in sensors quite happily!

[pbarnes]

<p>Ken:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Someone on PF claimed that the 645D felt as light as a K10D w/ the 50/1.4. I'll bet SR doesn't work well w/ a huge sensor like that...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Justin:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...making it close to the K10d in both size and weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My K10D with a 50/1.7 mounted weighs 967 gms. Using the specs in the dpreview articles, the combined weight of the 645D and the new lens is 1480g + 145g = 1.626 Kilos. That is a 68% increase in weight over the K10D.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"John, Your statements often conflict. Are you telling me images from. 40mp sensor will not exceed images from a 10-20MP sensor? All along you have been saying that small format is amateur, now you are saying format is irrelevant."</em><br>

Justin, I know you're well-intentioned, but I said nothing of the sort. </p>

<p>Obviously a 40mp sensor will record more detail than a 20mp sensor, but it won't print more image detail in any likely publication or moderate-sized enlargement (eg little advantage if any at 11X17). If it won't print more image detail it won't serve much of a purpose. The bigger sensor will serve zero purpose online. If the game is murals, MF digital will be a compromise vs big film...but of course, with the demise of photolabs film has become irrelevant, for color at least.</p>

<p>APS is limited, and my K20D can't rival my Nikon scans from 35mm in terms of subtle tonality..but it seems to record more detail. In general fine 35mm whups the APS DSLR at 13X19, but in general I'm doing better photography with the DSLR. </p>

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously a 40mp sensor will record more detail than a 20mp sensor, but it won't print more image detail in any likely publication or moderate-sized enlargement (eg little advantage if any at 11X17).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not in disagreement with you on this. I am in disagreement of whom the cameras intended audience is. This is the replacement for a LF system, not a MF or 35mm system.<br>

<br /> So you are correct, you wouldn't buy this if you were solely looking to print photos in a magazine. Likewise you wouldn't buy this if you were only posting to the web.</p>

<p>Quite honestly, there might be a few people who do, but I don't think most people on this forum are looking at it for that reason.</p>

<p>I also agree with you as far as detail vs. tonality. I'll even go further in saying I think color balance is better and more pleasing in film than digital.</p>

<p>That said, with the issues with flying and carryon, inspections etc. film is dead to me for anything I don't drive to. I expect other people to be doing the same, thus I expect large format to die off fairly quickly as MF digital drops in price (hopefully aided by Pentax).</p>

<p>I think this is a very reasonable alternative to large format film.</p>

<p>So I'm not really sure what the negative is in pentax system assuming they can follow through and AT LEAST get it to where it was when they were a market leader in film MF. If they can do that, I think they will be sucessful even in a niche market, if they can't, this will be produced for a few cycles and like the Kodak 14C/N it will disappear.</p>

<p> </p>

[rparmar]

<p>If there was no argument for MF digital (cropped or not) then there would be no market for the different Hasselblad and Mamiya series, the Leica S2, etc. Given that those three companies act as though there <em>is</em> a market, I see no reason why Pentax shouldn't make the same assumption. And then figure that they might have some sort of a competitive advantage by undercutting prices by 50%.</p>

[ken_yee]

<p>Justin: out of curiosity, what do you see the large format (I'm assuming you mean view cameras) market to me? Art studio sized prints?<br>

I've been wondering about how MF is going to fit in as well...the K20D/K7 easily can print images big enough for magazines and poster sized enlargements, but people are moving away from print media (newspapers/magazines are dying)...even big wall ads are moving to digital signage which is low resolution comparatively. For K20D/K7 users, it'd just be nice to be able to shoot a relatively clean ISO3200 (looks like our ISO800) like the FF have and the MF cameras can only go up to ISO1600 (looks like our ISO800).</p>

 

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>Isn't part of the issue with film tonality and color due to the film itself? I mean, PLEASE correct me, but different films that I've used as an amatuer have been different from each other in these respects. This is why we have Velvia and Gold and Provia (and all the other *via variations). I admit that I find the color of 35mm (in general) more pleasing than digital (out of the box). Can't these variations in 35mm film be applied to MF film as well? Aren't there cheap brands of 120 and 220?<br>

The biggest selling point for me on digital is price (per 24 frames, digital is nearly free) but the second biggest concern is consistency. I can go to whatever city I want with digital and not have to worry about the film I'll find at Walgreen's or Ralph's or how the TSA guy nuked my ISO800 film cause he wanted to see my bag run through the scanner again. I've had shots compromised from this exact thing. (TSA signs at LAX said film was good until 1600... what they meant was good at 1600 one time... My 800 went through 3 times and I had some funky "burn" spots on every frame). In digital you can corrupt your card, but at least the x-ray machine won't effect it. Although I'll admit that the chances of having 120 at Walgreen's is beyond poor, that means that every roll I could bring with me will get nuked.<br>

I guess what I'm really saying that is that although there are choices that are made and compromises had between film and digital you could use either medium for anything you want. I'm not a huge landscape guy. I'm more likely to take shots of a cloud than a mountain, but I think they looked better on film. Shots of people I like better on digital. I'd be more likely to use the 645D on people as simply a matter of convenience, but although it'd be nice to have one of my shots on a billboard, I don't see it happening in the next 5 years, so I'd be wasting 40MP on a shot that I can currently handle with 6MP. For the people that want to shoot landscape in Arizona and send it in, the 645D sounds perfect for that, and there are a lot of people that would jump into that with a sub $10k 645D. But no amount of money can turn someone into a better photographer. My shots are still mine whether its the ME or the *istDS or the 645D or even CaNikon or MiyamaBlad. Unless Pentax has included a Richard Avedon button on the 645D my shots will always have my style in them.</p>

<p>Okay, so that was a misguided rant, but I still feel that way.</p>

[michael_elenko]

<p>My one friend who shoots with the Hasselblad H4D-50 uses it to produce fine art prints that have dimensions that can be 3-6 feet on one side. He is highly successful having won many international showcase awards, and represented. The primary driver for his going digital was to accommodate the consequences of his having Parkinson's disease which is a damn shame. Still he manages to get out to obscure wilderness locations and create breathtaking captures.</p>

<p>My other friends who use MF still use Pentax 6x7 and 645 and then have them drum scanned in-house for Photoshop work. They are also highly successful. Their markets include calendars, tourist guidebooks, magazine pubs, fine art, and commercial interiors/exteriors. They also use DSLRs. I haven't yet asked them if they would consider the Pentax 645D, but will tonight.</p>

<p>ME</p>

[jeremy_corbin]

<p>ME, that's probably the most accurate response we can hope for: Someone who already uses that format for paid work on a religious basis giving us their thoughts.</p>

<p>I'd love to get a 645N just to mess around with, but I doubt I'd use it for paid work... but that's not saying much since nearly 99% of my work is unpaid. :-)</p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Jeremiah,</p>

<p>There is nothing special about the 645N unless you are happily shooting film and want more than the 35mm gear you have can produce.</p>

<p>Keeping in mind it requires a decent scan to get the most out of it.</p>

<p>If you have the cash it can be a fun toy to play with, but I personally wouldn't buy into it unless you see yourself using it to it's maximum. This includes high quality scans.</p>

<p>I've actually sold 2 images from the 645, but both were within the realm of what a APS-C DSLR could print, so I can't say I've actually recouped any of my investment or sold more images.</p>

<p>I do prefer using it for shooting black and white though, I get the results I tried to dupicate (the real look of b&w film) with a DSLR, and also a slight increase in image quality over the DSLR. I prefer the colors of film, but really if I'm shooting color I just use the DSLR. To date I've only shot about 8-10 rolls of color on the 645, while I've shot about 30 rolls of B&W.</p>

 

[andrew robertson]

"I think they are after BOTH the Canikon AND Mamiya markets."

 

As others have mentioned, this camera is not one for low light photography.

 

Here I was hoping that somebody would finally release a medium format digital that I could use like a film medium format rig -

loaded with super, ultra high speed film for low light photography.

 

This is a camera for deliberate photography, preferably in front of a large bank of lights, or on top of a tripod.

[jpo3136b]

<p>I woke up this morning, had some coffee, and the fanboy in me realized I could say it:</p>

<p><strong>Pentax has made the first "full frame" DSLR!</strong></p>

<p>;-) You might have to follow my love for this old 1986 645 to get it. I will accept that the totally unqualified marketing label "full frame" applies to the Pentax 645D. I concede the point in light of this new technology. I don't know what I would call that Phase One prototype imitator thing. ;-)</p>

<p>Good morning, fellas. If anybody actually gets one of these, we're going to need to see some pics. </p>