Pentax to Release 645D to the World

[miserere_mei]

<p>Price in US: $10k<br>

Price in UK: £9k</p>

<p>Prices for body only. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092318pentax645davailbility.asp">Read more.</a></p>

[stemked]

<p>Quoting Keates here:<br>

A thing of beauty is a joy for ever:<br />Its loveliness increases; it will never<br />Pass into nothingness; but still will keep<br />A bower quiet for us, and a sleep<br />Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.<br>

What an incredible tool. At those prices, these hands will likely never own one though.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>It's full-frame, right? ;P</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>Doug, Nicely put but like you, this will only be a dream on my budget. I do hope this is a winner and a profitable one as well. Not because I consider any 645 important to my needs but so the Pentax guys can show Hoya that they can build and sell a serious pro level camera successfully. Maybe, just maybe, they can then look at adding some missing lenses, TC's and bodies to the DSLR line.</p>

[trw]

<p>Mamiya's DM40 is about $22000 body only, for comparison.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>You can switch all sorts of different backs on the Mamiyas can't you? I do hope this goes well for Pentax too, I look forward to seeing it's output too, I imagine 40MP CCD will be incredible.</p>

[ukhov]

<p>To new, to hot...say after they sale first Hasselblad add to it 3 more years and buy your medium format ...may be even with 3D lenses! Now like german nazi milk a cow and grandma go cut some wood...got to wait </p>

[andrewg_ny]

<p>I'm a little surprised we haven't heard more announcements regarding new/updated 645 lenses.</p>

[bob_stevenson]

<p>VERY expensive for what it is,...... a small sensor MF camera (hardly a system like the others) A staggering 1.6X focal length factor!!...so the same old problems with wide-angles and a clumsy body which has to be flipped for vertical format. Yesterdays camera (and not one of the better ones either) with a sensor thrown inside.........</p>

<p>......Had pentax put this sensor into a slightly scaled up k7, which would have been possible, they would probably have had a giant killer...</p>

<p>And, yet again Mr Pentax, NINE THOUSAND quid does NOT equate to 10K USD........GRRRRR!!!</p>

[lauren_macintosh]

<p> Many of you will never be satisfied at what ever comes your way look at hassey price's then look at Mamiya's prices and then look at Pentax price's the only question to me would it be able to give me great results, But alas Not in my pocket book range Soda money and Champagne Taste's</p>

[miserere_mei]

<p>Bob, the crop factor is 1.27x, not 1.6x. It's still cropped, but not by that much.</p>

<p>The reason the price is "high" on this camera is not because of the body, but because of the sensor. Larger sensors cost proportionally more than smaller ones. This sensor has an area that is 1.7x larger than a FF sensor, but it doesn't cost 1.7x more, but probably 3, 4 or 5 times more; and I might even be overly optimistic here, because Kodak makes far less of these sensors than Sony does FF, so per unit pricing is even higher. Now consider that a FF Nikon D3x costs $8,000; the 645D doesn't sound so expensive all of a sudden.</p>

<p>Pentax have managed to pull a big one here, producing the cheapest MF digital in the market, and by a huge margin. Add to that that it has better AF and handling, and you've got one hell of a camera.</p>

<p>But it's not for you, and it's not for me. It was never intended to be. We are not the target audience.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>LOL @ Bob.</p>

[zane1664879013]

<p>Bob S., just out of curiosity, when was the last time you were happy (or at least neutral) about a Pentax product announcement?</p>

[bob_stevenson]

<p>Hassy HD4F is now available as an outfit of lens camera and back for the same price,...10K USD/Euro. So that's a better and more modern system camera with alternative V/F options, much superior spec AND a lens!!!.....for the same US price, or substantially cheaper here in the UK as 645D WITHOUT lens.....!!??!</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/mark_dubovoys_photokina_blog.shtml</p>

<p>Scroll down to find the Hassy news....</p>

[r.t. dowling]

<p>According to Google, £9,000 translates to $14,000. The U.S. gets a substantial discount compared to our friends on the other side of the lake. :-\</p>

[bob_stevenson]

<p>I make the crop factor very nearly the same as for APS/35mm...... The 645D sensor is shown on the pentax uk site as 44 X 33 mm....that's SUBSTANTIALLY smaller than 645 film format (56 X44 mm) In fact the 645D is nearer to 'FF' than it is to 645, the sensor being only just larger than HALF of 645 film format!!!</p>

<p>Diagonal of 645 is about 70mm,..thus requiring a 75mm standard lens. 645D sensor has a diagonal of 55mm......so, the 55mm wide-angle becomes a standard lens.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>Bob, what is the spec on the HD4-31?<br>

The P645D is marketed as mainly a landscape photographers camera. Landscapers don't need interchangeable finders and they don't need any crazy high speed flash sync. They just need a camera with good picture quality and from what I have seen in Japan, it certainly looks nice. The crop you mention is also not really a disadvantage of the P645D as I think all cameras in the price range (and even higher) feature the same crop.<br>

You mention the Hassy is cheap. OK, so you get your first lens with the kit. How much will your second lens cost? And the accessories? Pentax 645 lenses won't lose any performance points to the Hassy lenses and they are cheap and plentiful on the used market. I can also almost guarantee that the accessories will be cheaper for the Pentax.<br>

As a studio camera the Hassy might be better than the P645D. But hey, if you prefer the Hassy just get the Hassy. If people weren't allowed to buy "inferior" cameras then there would eventually only be 1 camera left in the world.</p>

[personalphotos]

<p>This can easily become a huge argument when we should be cheering the 645D on to great things. I for one hope and wish Pentax sells buckets of these cameras. Given the Hassy way of numbering cameras, the HD4-31 will be a 31MP 44x33 chip. See a typical <a href="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/1342793/uk_h3dii31_datasheet_v4.pdf">spec sheet for confirmation.</a> The Pentax exceeds the new Hassy by offering a 40MP chip. Who knows what else Hasselblad has done (removed) to try to stay competitive.</p>

<p>Pentax has done the industry a favour once more. Medium format digitals were always $20K or much more. Suddenly Pentax jumps in with a $10K model and the others are scrambling to offer something that appears to meet the price and features. I will bet you that the new Hassy will not hit the shelves for 6 months to a year because they got caught blind sided by how soon Pentax was ready to roll this camera out to the world.</p>

<p>So Bob, stuff it. Your argument that the 645D is not much bigger than a FF sensor is BS and you know it. That sensor size is 24x36mm. Substantially smaller. In fact 40% smaller in terms of surface area.</p>

<p>Pentax just showed that Hasselblad, Phase 1 and Mamiya were ripping their customers off for years. Now they have to strip down a model to make it look like they are responding.</p>

[rparmar]

<p>Peter Zack wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

Pentax just showed that Hasselblad, Phase 1 and Mamiya were ripping their customers off for years. Now they have to strip down a model to make it look like they are responding.

</blockquote>

Bravo Peter! Given that I own a 645N, the 645D is the camera I want. People talking this camera down obviously don't have a clue. Oh yes it's so hard to shoot portrait! LOL! It's a good price for what it offers. Shame I'm about £8,900 short!<br /><br />

Bob, I am amused you blame Pentax for the high price of gear in the UK, since it applies to <em>absolutely everything anyone has to purchase!</em> Apparently you think Pentax control the entire United Kingdom economy, which is more power than I grant them.

[personalphotos]

<p>Oh and since we're using Luminous Landscape as the reference. A few quotes from August 2010:<br /> 1) My sense is that this camera will be a bit of a game-changer.<br /> 2) This camera just feels good. Mechanically, it has inherited the DNA of the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/645nii.shtml">Pentax 645N II</a>, which was a very fine camera indeed. [anyone who thinks the N or NII were not top of the pack in MF, needs to read this review]<br /> 3) [speaking of WS/WR] This is a huge development for outdoor photographers, and suggests that Pentax knows exactly who their market is.<br /> 4)...the original Pentax 645 lens system gained a solid reputation for quality, along with very attractive pricing. The Pentax 645D can use all of these lenses (with a 1.3x crop factor).<br /> <strong><em>No Shit! A 1.3 crop factor. Really.....</em></strong><br /> 5) [discussing dust removal] Pentax could be well ahead of the field in addressing this issue.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-645d-first.shtml">Full review here</a></p>

[mountainvisions]

<p>Jeez,</p>

<p>The 645D has a 1.27X crop, so it's not closer to a FF sensor it's a little smaller than a piece of 6x4.5 negative.</p>

<p>As far as portrait, yes and no. Since a lot of shots with this size system are tripod based, the second tripod socket is really nice and I don't find shooting my 645N all that difficult in portrait.</p>

<p>Quite honestly, I love the way the 645N handles, I assume the 645D will handle well. I'm curious, Bob is your wrist healthy? You seem fixated on your potential inability to cock your wrist to shoot DSLR/MF DSLR in a portrait orientation.</p>

<p>As far as the interchangeable backs, I'm sure why I would need a bunch of backs for a digital MF camera. Pentax did quite well without interchangeable backs on it's film 645 system. Sure there were cons to it, like no mid roll changes, but the system was more durable, more compact, and cheaper to produce and sell. With digital there is no need for a mid roll change, and unless Pentax was rolling out differently shaped sensors (square perhaps) there is no reason to need to change the back on a relatively cheap $10,000 camera.</p>

<p>If Pentax can regroup it's former target market (landscape/travel shooters and wedding photogs) it could have a winner. The 645D isn't aimed at you, it's aimed at people who were considering or already owned a $8000 24x36 DSLR and wanted better LOW ISO IQ without concern for frame rates.These people might consider the 40% larger sensor that is optimized to shoot at lower ISOs for high quality output a significant upgrade.</p>

<p>IMO, it's aimed at people comfortable with cameras like the 645N or even large format gear. However, the question will ultimately be, with the IQ available from a high res 24x36 digital sensor, the options for system lenses, and the size advantage (of lenses, specifically telephoto) + frame rate advantages has the ship sailed on a mass market medium format digital.</p>

<p>I've had a few informal conversations with people who make a full time living shooting landscapes, and many of them have told me that there is limited advantage to medium format digital over a 24+MP full frame 35mm style system for that line of work. If this is true then the 645D and system will die off pretty quickly.</p>

<p>Overall though, Pentax could have a winner for what we perceive as it's target market. Or we'll find out just how outdated the 120 format actually is!</p>

[andrewg_ny]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"unless Pentax was rolling out differently shaped sensors (square perhaps)"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Which has its own issues--like need for a larger focal plane shutter, which would probably exact a cost in x-sync speed--which Pentax managed to improve on 645D vs. 645Nii, possibly due to a smaller shutter? Either that or system needs to use leaf shutter exclusively. Optical viewfinder wouldn't handle it either...lots of reasons why not to do this.</p>

<p>Everything is a compromise. Change this, and lose that. Pentax 645 system is built like a solid little (weather-sealed) brick. If you start making rotatable this, interchangable that, it will certainly grow in size, weight, and price and lose its identity as a MF system that's more portable and better-handling, and possibly become much more difficult to seal.</p>

<p>I don't think selectively rounded (whatever suits one's point of view better, right?) comparisons of crop factors is a very good or precise way of comparing formats.<br /> Compare areas (in square millimeters):</p>

<ul>

<li>645 film (60x45): 2700</li>

<li>645D (44x33): 1452 (54% of 645 film)</li>

<li>135 (36x24): 864 (60% of 645D)</li>

<li>APS-C (23.4x15.6): 365 (42% of 135)</li>

</ul>

<p>Even though these numbers are more easily compared than crop factors, the real issue with comparing these figures is that you're only comparing <em>format potential</em> rather than actual sensor implementations (not to mention the rest of the imaging pipeline), each with their own performance characteristics - pixel density/resolution, pixel quality (AA filters, etc.), dynamic range, signal-noise ratio, color accuracy, etc.</p>

<p>Does anybody really doubt that for the intended use (moderate ISO) that the 645D has higher imaging potential than the smaller formats? Clearly though you can take pretty damn good pictures by most people's measure even with APS-C. Like many other things in life we pay for, decreasing returns for larger and larger additional investment--double the amount of money spent, get much less in return. But if that's the level of quality you want/require there's no other way to get it.</p>

<p>And if you don't want to pay for it, you'll have to settle for less. The question is whether there are enough buyers to keep the high-priced systems commercially viable. How many people actually earn livings from commercial landscape photography, anyway? An awful lot of people are willing to do a fair amount of this for free. Are there enough that Hoya will turn a reasonable profit their investment and continue to do so for a few years?</p>

[dan_south]

>>.NINE THOUSAND quid does NOT equate to 10K USD........GRRRRR!!!

 

Perhaps you should speak to your prime minister about his luxurious import duties. That's not the fault of Pentax.

 

And with regard to it being "very expensive", for a few dollars/pounds less you can buy a 24 MP Nikon. 10k is a great deal

for 40 MP.

[mountainvisions]

<blockquote>

<p>An awful lot of people are willing to do a fair amount of this for free.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, but this has hurt every genre. Look at the wedding industry. I've argued with Misere that doing it by the book and competing with the guy (or rather 10,000 guys/gals in any given city) is a losing battle. People already established can survive (probably at a lower income rate), but if your starting out it's tough to invest in all the little tidbits and still come out ahead.</p>

<p>As far as landscapes, the only stuff I've ever given away is to non profit advocacy groups. Although I can't take a tax credit on an image alone, part of why I enjoy shooting landscapes is to increase awareness of the wild places I'd love with or without a camera in hand, and if giving away an image that they use on a brochure or whatever helps that, than I've done my part. Other than that, no reason to give away my work. You want it, you can pay for it, otherwise it sits on my hard drive or my wall!</p>

<p>Giving away your work is a bad idea. Even if it's a hobby to you, someone probably is trying to make a living off of it. Besides, if your work is that good, shouldn't you be compensated for it?</p>

[miserere_mei]

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>645 film (60x45): 2700</li>

<li>645D (44x33): 1452 (54% of 645 film)</li>

<li>135 (36x24): 864 (60% of 645D)</li>

<li>APS-C (23.4x15.6): 365 (42% of 135)</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Andrew, the size of the image on 645 film is actually 56mm × 41.5mm, so the area is 2324sq.mm, and the area of the 645D chip is 62.5% of 645 film.</p>