Pentax 645Z

[Radu Arama]

Source ?

September 26th to be more precised!

Radu

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20140711_657504.html

[Paul2660]

Does anyone know when the 645Z will get into a "available" status on either Adorama or B&H Photo?  It's beenj in a available for back order status since the announcement. Or when it will start to shop in volume? 

Also to any US buyers,  is there a US service center?  Or do repairs still have to go to Japan.

Thanks
Paul

[michael]

B&H showed the 645z as in stock a couple of weeks ago, but it would appear that they sold out.

I am told that demand is far exceeding supply in most world markets.

Michael

[Paul2660]

Michael

Thanks looks like they definitely have a winner on their hands.

Paul

[eronald]

B&H showed the 645z as in stock a couple of weeks ago, but it would appear that they sold out.

I am told that demand is far exceeding supply in most world markets.

Michael

That's very good news. Pentax will doubtless start cranking out lenses if they are selling bodies.
Hopefully Phase and Hasselblad will now also review their pricing; their policies had starved and all but killed this market segment.

Edmund

[Theodoros]

Michael

Thanks looks like they definitely have a winner on their hands.

Paul

How can it fail? ...If one wants a comparable image sensor and only does DSLR use of his/hers camera, he has to pay much more... If he wants to be "deferent" from other DSLR users... its the cheapest thing around... There is no competition available (yet)... is there?  Hear, hear... Doug will be shooting weddings with an ...IQ250! 

[BernardLanguillier]

The main advantage of this camera over the D810 (I have a D800) is that with the 645Z I can make much larger prints - more pixels equals exponentially better enlargement ability. I regularly do prints 6 feet to 10 feet in size and need the MF resolution. This is not just my blind opinion but is from my 15 years of making art prints and pixel peeping every file and print. 

Elisabeth,

I find the 645Z to be a remarkable camera and it is great to read that you are pleased with the outcome.

Now, I am a bit doubtful about the exponentially better enlargement ability part of your statement. Considering that the pixel quality/sharpness of the 645Z and D810 are similar (which is reasonable), what you get is the ability to move up from a 20x24 inch print to a 23x28 inch print, everything else being equal. It is for sure a relevant difference if you don't stitch, but I don't see this as exponentially better.

Now, one of the concern I have with the 645Z is the quality of the lenses compared to the best 35mm offerings, today and in the future. I am wondering whether this theoretical advantage resulting from higher pixel counter will really show in terms of actual detail once lens quality is factored in. The Pentax 90mm seems to be the only truly outstanding lens in the Pentax line up as we speak compared to a wide variety of choices in Nikon mount. Since Sigma and Zeiss will not be developing lenses for this size of sensors so I don't see the gap reducing, on the contrary.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes, indeed,

But the story was the same with the P645D. I don't think it was a failure, but it didn't afffect Phase and Hassy sales either.

Best regards
Erik

How can it fail? ...If one wants a comparable image sensor and only does DSLR use of his/hers camera, he has to pay much more... If he wants to be "deferent" from other DSLR users... its the cheapest thing around... There is no competition available (yet)... is there?  Hear, hear... Doug will be shooting weddings with an ...IQ250! 

[jerome_m]

Now, one of the concern I have with the 645Z is the quality of the lenses compared to the best 35mm offerings, today and in the future. I am wondering whether this theoretical advantage resulting from higher pixel counter will really show in terms of actual detail once lens quality is factored in. The Pentax 90mm seems to be the only truly outstanding lens in the Pentax line up as we speak compared to a wide variety of choices in Nikon mount. Since Sigma and Zeiss will not be developing lenses for this size of sensors so I don't see the gap reducing, on the contrary.

The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.

The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.

[torger]

But the story was the same with the P645D. I don't think it was a failure, but it didn't afffect Phase and Hassy sales either.

Yes I could be the same this time around too, but I think it's a bit different now as the camera landscape look different. The 645D was released 2010, two years before the D800. Now with very capable 135 cameras like the D800/D810 and A7r people has got used to that high resolution can be had cheap and more starting to question the pricing of MF. Then three cameras come out with the exact same Sony sensor which is the same type of technology as in D800/A7r. Similar results can be had from all, yet pricing is very different. Hasselblad has also launched a luxury consumer line of rebranded Sony products and Leica has moved further into being just a luxury brand.

I think customers today are much more aware of that if you get Hassy, Leica or Phase you pay a lot just for their business model rather than getting actual product value. This means that the 645Z may make a larger impact than 645D did. We'll see.

[torger]

The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.

The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.

135 systems have not previously been optimized for "MF applications", ie high resolution photography in good light. It has not really been meaningful to do so as high resolution sensors has not existed. It's different now, and the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lens lines are the first(?) products that aim for high resolving power. Still it's easier to resolve more with a larger format, but maybe modern optics manufacturing will make the size factor less meaningful.

It's quite early though, and it's still true that for 135 systems most lenses are not designed for very high resolving power. Personally I don't find Zeiss Otus to be a real alternative, as for this type of camera I want autofocus.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Lloyd has been looking into this, comparing the Pentax 24 mm with the Zeiss 21 on A7r, and also Pentax 90 mm with Otus, i think. I am not sure about the outcome, but I felt he preferred the smaller formats.

The other side of the equation is that the weakness of 135 lenses you mention seems to be mostly in the corners and corners are mostly not the most important part of the image. Also, new lenses are coming from Sigma and Zeiss offering much improved performance across the field.

The third part is that there is a need of stopping for aperture on MFD, if I can shoot with DSLR at 5.6 and need to stop down an MFD to f/11, diffraction will affect the MFD while the DSLR is still in the optimal region.

I would also say, that all these may be pixel peeping differences, quite visible at actual pixels on screen, but this not the way pictures are normally presented. Pictures are either shown on screen. Which has two megapixels, or in prints.

Either way, low frequency detail will dominate over microcontrast.

Best regards
Erik

The opposite may actually be true. My experience with MF format lenses, although not directly from Pentax, is that they are much, much better than what is generally available in 24x36.

The reason is actually quite simple: MF lenses are generally bigger than their 24x36 counterparts (even when counting the difference in coverage) and slower. The optical engineer does not have to optimise for size or aperture.

[BernardLanguillier]

Lloyd has been looking into this, comparing the Pentax 24 mm with the Zeiss 21 on A7r, and also Pentax 90 mm with Otus, i think. I am not sure about the outcome, but I felt he preferred the smaller formats.

The details are interesting and I recommend anyone interested in this comparison to subscribe to DAP at diglloyd.com, but in short he finds that the 90mm Pentax is the only lens thanks to which the 645Z isn't inferior to a D810 + a good 35 mm equivalent lens. Now he didn't test multiple samples,... so this must be taken with a grain of salt as all reviews are.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

135 systems have not previously been optimized for "MF applications", ie high resolution photography in good light. It has not really been meaningful to do so as high resolution sensors has not existed. It's different now, and the Zeiss Otus and Sigma Art lens lines are the first(?) products that aim for high resolving power. Still it's easier to resolve more with a larger format, but maybe modern optics manufacturing will make the size factor less meaningful.

It's quite early though, and it's still true that for 135 systems most lenses are not designed for very high resolving power. Personally I don't find Zeiss Otus to be a real alternative, as for this type of camera I want autofocus.

There is a fairly cheap and very good af 50mm for the Sony. If you want high quality and SLR convenience, but the 50 is your main lens then the whole system with 50 is probably cheaper than the huge non-af Otus.

Edmund

[bcooter]

Obviously there has been a large unfilled demand for a larger than 35mm camera that comes it at under $10,000 and it seems the Pentax fills that niche.

Probably in the real world, 22, to 35 to 50mpx doesn't make that much difference in most applications given that photography style, concept, what's in front of the lens is more important than the actual capture device, as long as the camera doesn't inhibit you.

This forum is more tech oriented, mostly visited by advanced enthusiasts, less so by working for profit image makers, so the viewpoints are going to vary.

The pentax strikes a positive with the photographer that doesn't want to do the typical canon/nikon thing, but wants something a little different, a little more "special".

I assume when Pentax/Richoh decided on where to go next they could do a follow the herd full frame 35mm camera and fight it out for 4th or 5th place, or just continue to be a little bit different and go for the larger format group at a higher price point. 

I hope it works for them, because being different is good.

IMO

BC

[dag.bb]

The conclusion that "the 90mm Pentax is the only lens thanks to which the 645Z isn't inferior to a D810 + a good 35 mm equivalent lens." seems rather quick. In addition to sample variation, if one also includes MF-lenses such as the Otus, as I have mentioned before, it would be natural to also consider MF-lenses for the Pentax. Ming Thein found that: "In short, the Zeiss V glass [on the 645Z] outperforms the legacy FA Pentax lenses (75/2.8 vs 2.8/80; 200/4 vs 4/150) by a noticeable margin, wide open or stopped down. The Zeisses tend to start off a bit softer but improve more through f8-11". So if some of the legacy lenses are less than stellar, it seems some of the focal lenghts could be filled in by other brands. Others have also found lenses such as the  P67 55-100mm to be sharper than the 645 version. I have personally used the old 120mm A macro (bought for $ 160 on ebay!) on a 15mpix APS-C Canon (with higher pixel density than the 645Z), and it was very sharp. I would be curious as to which lens Lloyd found that outperformed it and the 645Z on 35mm. With the new 28-45mm and rumored new 80-160mm, it seems Pentax will update its lens line to support the 645Z in any event.

Dag

[Ken R]

Obviously there has been a large unfilled demand for a larger than 35mm camera that comes it at under $10,000 and it seems the Pentax fills that niche.

Probably in the real world, 22, to 35 to 50mpx doesn't make that much difference in most applications given that photography style, concept, what's in front of the lens is more important than the actual capture device, as long as the camera doesn't inhibit you.

This forum is more tech oriented, mostly visited by advanced enthusiasts, less so by working for profit image makers, so the viewpoints are going to vary.

The pentax strikes a positive with the photographer that doesn't want to do the typical canon/nikon thing, but wants something a little different, a little more "special".

I assume when Pentax/Richoh decided on where to go next they could do a follow the herd full frame 35mm camera and fight it out for 4th or 5th place, or just continue to be a little bit different and go for the larger format group at a higher price point. 

I hope it works for them, because being different is good.

IMO

BC

I have tested a bunch of camera / sensor and lens combinations and to really get a significant improvement in image (system) resolution over a D800E and the BEST lenses on it you need to use the best tech camera lenses and the 60mp or 80mp CMOS sensor backs (given equally good technique and average light). The difference is really eye opening.

Obviously system resolution is not the only parameter to take into consideration when choosing a system (and honestly in a lot of cases it is far down the list) but that does not make my statement any less true.

When you use those same 60/80 mp backs with SLR lenses you loose a bit of resolution (again that is with the best SLR lenses) and the performance get closer to what you would get with the D800E and the 645D (again, using the very best lenses for each camera). It still ahead (again in terms of resolution) but the increased costs and versatility compromises get harder to justify, again, if you only use resolution as the measuring stick. (like a few here have done a LOT of times).

As a camera / sensor body the 645Z seems superb. As a system it is in the middle (not only in price), it has the convenience, functionality, ease of use, integration and ANY light Image Quality of a typical top end DSLR (35mm) camera body but without the HUGE lens selection available for the 35mm DSLR systems or the VERY high quality leaf shutter lens availability of a PhaseOne, Hasselblad H or Leica S system. The PhaseOne and Leaf backs offer the additional possibility of using Tech Camera lens setups (my choice) that offer LOTS of sensor / lens movements.

Regarding the 90mm Pentax 645 lens. It is a good one but IMHO it is priced WAY to high and the Bokeh is unattractive. It is however very sharp and has IS.

Again, it's great to have options.

BC you are spot on. It is tough to make recommendations since very few of us here seem to work in collaborative, client supervised photography jobs. I just always try to make clear where im coming from when making a recommendation and giving out info on gear.

[Theodoros]

I have tested a bunch of camera / sensor and lens combinations ....

Failed to see (or understand the results off) any "testing" whatsoever...  Sorry... 

[eronald]

I assume when Pentax/Richoh decided on where to go next they could do a follow the herd full frame 35mm camera and fight it out for 4th or 5th place, or just continue to be a little bit different and go for the larger format group at a higher price point. 

I hope it works for them, because being different is good.

IMO

BC

I assume they saw thePhase prices and decide to compete on price and integration.

Best of luck to them.

[bcooter]

Edmund,

For years you've dissed medium format prices but hey, they got you once and you wrote the check and last time I looked all the medium format guys were still doing good business.

The Pentax is a good deal IF you don't have any lenses or hooked into the Phase system, but when it comes to professional tethering, long (very very long) lasting equipment with a strong dealer network
(the stuff the professionals need), Phase is at the very tippy top of the list and no offense to Pentax but they're new lenses aren't cheap, nobody knows about their software suite, or repair facilities.

I can dig it that you want prices to come down, understand that since your not a pro, you don't need to spend the cash, but no medium format salesman I know is getting rich, they're just making a living and I hope they're around for a long time.

Phase, Leaf, Leica, Blad are not huge companies like Canon and Nikon so it's not like they're leveraging their weight.

People buy their products because they want to.  Phase doesn't have subpoena power, they just offer a product and hope people buy.

So far it's been working pretty well for such a small company.

Chill on the money man.

IMO

BC