rumor: Pentax 645D Price: $6500 USD

[fredjeang]

On velvia and techpan. ;o)

It resolves 85 -90 LP/mm. To be honest, I'm not sure what the digital lenses resolve though. Maybe I'm way off.

You would be surprised how good these genuine vintage lenses are on digital. Ok, it is manual focussing, but if you can live with it, just make a test on digital with a modern top lens and one of these vintage primes...it is worth to see it by yourself, really.
And the feel in hand is unbeatable.

[fredjeang]

How exactly are you using these vintage Pentax 6x7 lenses on digital?

Of course, you understood that I'm talking about 35mm vintage lenses, because Pentax has not yet released their 645D so a comparaison is not yet possible.
Having shooted with both (new and vintage manual) on Pentax DSLR, I came to the conclusion that these old lenses are really on the top, BUT only if you are
interested in manual focussing, otherwise you might find them an hassle.
It is going to be more or less the same with 645D, even better as the old Pentax 6x7 lenses are known to be extremely good and recognized so worldwide.
There is nothing new in what I'm saying, there are extensive evidence from the users about that fact all over the web, and I confirm this fact: Vintage Pentax lenses are really good and worth a look.

Fred.

[FrançoisTT]

I do not know the Pentax lenses but it depends so much on each lens... you should expect many surprises.
Some old manual focus lenses are more than excellent in digital (I think about some of the Zeiss & Schneider lenses on Rollei mount), others seems inappropriate (the best example could be the famous Biogon 38mm which is not necessary the best choice for a digital use).

[fredjeang]

I do not know the Pentax lenses but it depends so much on each lens... you should expect many surprises.
Some old manual focus lenses are more than excellent in digital (I think about some of the Zeiss & Schneider lenses on Rollei mount), others seems inappropriate (the best example could be the famous Biogon 38mm which is not necessary the best choice for a digital use).

You are absolutly right François.
I is worth mentioning that not all works well in digital. I'd say to avoid third-party lenses (a part from some exceptions and you might check before on the web from users reports).
In the case of Pentax and resuming, the lenses that where generaly highly regarded in the film age also have a very good reputation in digital but there are some cases where it does not work and ones have to check case by case and find informations.
For example, the mytic 50mm f1.4 performs better in digital than the f1.2 much more expensive.
But in general, the good ones are a "secure value" than is reflected in the second-hand market.
Now, for the 645D it will be another story as it is another market and 99% of the lenses will just work fine.

Fred.

[tesfoto]

How exactly are you using these vintage Pentax 6x7 lenses on digital?

There is an Contax 645 adapter for Pentax 67 lenses. They are wonderful lenses on digital.

[Rob C]

Only Pentax lenses I owned were the 6x7 format ones - the 55mm and 200mm.  The 67ll body was solid but the shutter bounce made me give up in the end. Also, the very slow synch with the huge focal plane shutter was not that wonderful an experience; perhaps if Pentax had made a series of shuttered lenses à la Hasselblad it would have been different; as far as I remember, they only made them in 100mm and 160mm and then stopped one or the other of those. A digital back on that body - I wouldn't hope so.

But when you consider that Mario Testino, Marino Parisotto Vay and Sante D'Orazio have done very well with that camera...

Rob C

[pschefz]

Only Pentax lenses I owned were the 6x7 format ones - the 55mm and 200mm.  The 67ll body was solid but the shutter bounce made me give up in the end. Also, the very slow synch with the huge focal plane shutter was not that wonderful an experience; perhaps if Pentax had made a series of shuttered lenses à la Hasselblad it would have been different; as far as I remember, they only made them in 100mm and 160mm and then stopped one or the other of those. A digital back on that body - I wouldn't hope so.

But when you consider that Mario Testino, Marino Parisotto Vay and Sante D'Orazio have done very well with that camera...

Rob C

add peter lindberg to that....

[bcooter]

You would be surprised how good these genuine vintage lenses are on digital. Ok, it is manual focussing, but if you can live with it, just make a test on digital with a modern top lens and one of these vintage primes...it is worth to see it by yourself, really.
And the feel in hand is unbeatable.

I've used Pentax lenses on the contax with a p31+, p21+ and Aptus 22

This is with the Aptus 22 with the pentax 105 2.4 lens

[attachment=20363:pentax.jpg]

They're sharp, but have a different look of the Zeiss lenses which are more contrasty or better put crisp.

These forums seem to be all about nat's eyelash sharpness but there's a lot more to a phtoograph than ultimate sharpness, and "detail"  whatever ultimate is.

Anyway, Pentax makes nice lenses they have a good look and the people that loved the 6x7 are still using them today.

BC

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have a Pentax 67 with 45, 9072.8, 165/2.8 and 300/4 lenses which I obviously only used with film. My experience is that very fine (stunning!) 70x100 cm enlargements are very well possible with scanned images using Velvia and Provia. On the other hand I can see a lot of problems in the scanned images in actual pixels view. Chromatic aberration is pretty bad, which is quite obvious.

One thing I also noticed that images a friend shot with his Hasselblad (same subject, same condition, same time) were better than mine. This may depend on my friend having better technique or the Hasselblad having better lenses.

Now, the Pentax 645 may have better lenses than the Pentax 67, but I wouldn't hold my breath that they are good enough for digital. Just as a reminder:

Michael Reichmann found that his Canon 1Ds? essentially outperformed his Contax 645, mostly because of limitations with his Zeiss lenses. Hasselblad uses a new lens line for their cameras, calculated at Hasselblad and built at Fujinon. At least in the MTF data published by Hasselblad the new HC (Fujinon) lenses are clearly better (MTF-wise) as the old Zeiss designs. Any one can check, MTF data can be downloaded from Hasselblads website.

Michael returned to medium format, but started out with new Rodenstock Digitar lenses, specially designed for use with MFDBs.

A quoute from the Reichmann article: "But after more than a year of shooting both with a 16MP Canon 1Ds MKII and a 22 MP P25 back on the Contax, I came to a couple of realizations. The Canon and Zeiss lenses on their respective cameras were not the equal of their sensors. In other words, the sensors were outperforming the lenses. Even using the best primes on the Canon proved to me that the 1Ds MKII was not being pushed to its limit, and using lesser lenses often disappointed."

The whole article is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...ital-view.shtml

Best regards
Erik

Only Pentax lenses I owned were the 6x7 format ones - the 55mm and 200mm.  The 67ll body was solid but the shutter bounce made me give up in the end. Also, the very slow synch with the huge focal plane shutter was not that wonderful an experience; perhaps if Pentax had made a series of shuttered lenses à la Hasselblad it would have been different; as far as I remember, they only made them in 100mm and 160mm and then stopped one or the other of those. A digital back on that body - I wouldn't hope so.

But when you consider that Mario Testino, Marino Parisotto Vay and Sante D'Orazio have done very well with that camera...

Rob C

[tetsuo77]

My interest in these older lenses is just how well they perform when used for digital capture.

I was given some Hasselblad .fff files recently taken using a variety of V series lenses in combination with a Hasselblad 39 MP back. Unsurprisingly there was variation between the lenses and perhaps unsurprisingly there were a lot of focussing errors. Having said that, those that were sharp were knuckle-grazing sharp to the extent that they did the model no favours at all, but did prove the ability of these vintage lenses to deliver sharp files when needed.

As to whether 'sharpness' and 'detail' are important, well, it rather depends on the intention.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/pentax645_fa35mm.html

I don´t think this is a matter of resolution or, better said, resolving power.
Or not at least THAT much about resolving power.
My biggest fears on old lenses are fringing and flare, which can get quite harsh with old lenses, and the working aperture [or best working aperture] does, indeed, change.

[Rob C]

add peter lindberg to that....

And to think I had him down as a Nikonista! He also used to use Hasselblads, since I saw some of his work in one of their publications many years ago. Though I do like his shots in old factories, I never did go for his Pirelli work nor, for that matter, his taste in models. How odd that even model stratosphere can have some that turn one right off!

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

With this repeated cross-indexing, does anyone know if James R and BC are one and the same?  Most confusing. And if so, why so?

Rob C

[bcooter]

Regardless of lenses, (though with Pentax I'm pretty sure they be very good) and regardless that were talking about a camera that nobody I know has ever held, I think the real key to this is the $6,500 medium format price for a new camera.

That's where this stuff needed to be all along and honestly if medium format backs had been in this price range 6 years ago, there would a lot more RZs, V series, Contax's and Bronicas still in use rather than sitting on dusty shelves.

At this price it will open up the joys (well let's hope not all the "joys") of medium format ownership without the huge buy in and depreciation, but also offer a lot of things we've been asking for a long time like a really good lcd and in camera jpegs.

As far as being ZD like, time will tell, but that's probably painting it with a pretty broad brush and all of medium format has a lot of things in the past and present that are somewhat zd like, so that's a door I wouldn't want to open if I was comparing.

I hope it succeeds and opens up medium format for more people, more use, because at this price this is something you just about would have to have in your bag.

BC

[vandevanterSH]

Unsurprisingly there was variation between the lenses and perhaps unsurprisingly there were a lot of focussing errors.
*********
My "V" lenses, with digital,  out perform my aged eye to focus them.  I have just purchased a 5.5 X mag hood to use with my 203,  hopefully to be more consistent with "dead on" focus.  Using the "Vs" with a Nikon, the sharpness is quite good using live view at max zoom + 3.3 mag hood.  In brief testing, using a lens testing target, the old Zeiss was equal to or better than Nikon lenses at approx same focal lengths.  I was surprised after reading many comments that new "35" mm lenses designed with CAD and using new glass were better then old "slide-rule" designed MF lenses.

Steve

[fredjeang]

Unsurprisingly there was variation between the lenses and perhaps unsurprisingly there were a lot of focussing errors.
*********
My "V" lenses, with digital,  out perform my aged eye to focus them.  I have just purchased a 5.5 X mag hood to use with my 203,  hopefully to be more consistent with "dead on" focus.  Using the "Vs" with a Nikon, the sharpness is quite good using live view at max zoom + 3.3 mag hood.  In brief testing, using a lens testing target, the old Zeiss was equal to or better than Nikon lenses at approx same focal lengths.  I was surprised after reading many comments that new "35" mm lenses designed with CAD and using new glass were better then old "slide-rule" designed MF lenses.

Steve

Steve, I was surprised too...but it seems that this is a taboo topic. The fact that pentax DSLR have a lack in current modern optics, and the fact that the mount is 100% compatible with all vintage Pentax lenses, many pentax users have purchased vintage lenses more than in any other brand. There are sometimes problems (flare), sometimes not, the main issue as you said is that manual focussing with the garbage viewfinders we have now is a real problem if not using live-view. But...the quality is extremely high...better than new 35mm lenses? If your familiar with these I'm sure you have the answer, but...shhh...taboo subject.    

As BC said, I hope it succeeds and bring more people to MFD. A lot of big masters have been working with this system and it will be nice to see Pentax in MFD again.

[tetsuo77]

And,
ahem, ahem.
There is this funny question that apparently nobody is asking, and apparently it seems to be quite obvious.
Were this Pentax be all the rumours true, how will Leica look like?
All the machinery conceived, I mean.
There seems to be quite a difference in price, and 645 lenses are no slouch on either side. And the Pentax 645NII was a very well built machine, as well. In a very japanese way of thinking, but a very well built machine [plus some very clever hoods, specially for polarizing filters].
But 6500 usd vs. 23000 usd seems a tad too much.
[although that is the very difference between the K7 and M8, I know].

Edit:
I just want to come clear:
No, I´m not looking forward to start a war, or similar. I just want to know the opinions of y´all about two systems which are ranging from very expensive [Pentax] to extremely expensive [Leica].

Becasue still the cheapest way to go for a DMF camera is a steampunked Holga [which I wonder when they are coming up to with].

[smoody]

That $6500 price tag is a rumored price. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera comes in at $8500 or more, but it sort-of depends (sadly) on how many pixels the next gen Canon 1Ds (*rumored* to be announced this week) crams onto its sensor and what the price point is. If they manage to cram 35-ish megapixels onto their sensor and it costs, say, $7000 USD, then that's the benchmark for pricing the 645D, in my opinion. They have to figure out how prosumers will react given the difference in features, megapixels, high-iso image quality, device size, etc. I'm guessing the Canon will win on every front except for two perhaps: megapixels and overall image quality. Given that, can Pentax price it higher than the Canon? Or does it have to be equal or lower priced?

It's obvious that I think the 645D is Pentax's answer to the Canon 1Ds. However, if it comes in at anywhere close to the price point being bandied about, I think it'll send shivers down a lot of vendors' spines. But, the fact that Hasselblad announced and priced the new H4DII-40 before the Pentax announcement means that they're not too worried (or they didn't see it coming).

[fredjeang]

That $6500 price tag is a rumored price. I wouldn't be surprised if the camera comes in at $8500 or more, but it sort-of depends (sadly) on how many pixels the next gen Canon 1Ds (*rumored* to be announced this week) crams onto its sensor and what the price point is. If they manage to cram 35-ish megapixels onto their sensor and it costs, say, $7000 USD, then that's the benchmark for pricing the 645D, in my opinion. They have to figure out how prosumers will react given the difference in features, megapixels, high-iso image quality, device size, etc. I'm guessing the Canon will win on every front except for two perhaps: megapixels and overall image quality. Given that, can Pentax price it higher than the Canon? Or does it have to be equal or lower priced?

It's obvious that I think the 645D is Pentax's answer to the Canon 1Ds. However, if it comes in at anywhere close to the price point being bandied about, I think it'll send shivers down a lot of vendors' spines. But, the fact that Hasselblad announced and priced the new H4DII-40 before the Pentax announcement means that they're not too worried (or they didn't see it coming).

I think Hasselblad does not have to worried about the Pentax, these 2 were co-existing perfectly in film age and each model has its style and lovers.
But I bet Pentax will be cheap. Their recent politics is about agressive prices but with good features. I'm sure it will not be up 7000.
And it is official, this model will be released.

[Steve Hendrix]

I'll post here what I've already posted on another thread.

If the Pentax is really delivered and is really $6500 and is really 40MP and is really anything other than a bug-eyed dog without a mother then the fun will be seeing the reaction of the other MFD players.

I agree.

But I would be shocked.

I am fully expecting a 31 megapixel product. And in that case, it still opens up a little bit of a new market for that sensor/camera combination.

But we'll see. Looking forward to it.


Steve Hendrix

[Rob C]

If the Pentax is really delivered and is really $6500 and is really 31MP and is really anything other than a bug-eyed dog without a mother then the fun will be seeing the reaction of the other MFD players.

 

Keith, your bug-eyed dogs are memories of Ibiza; they used to roam Mallorca too until there was a cull some years ago.

Rob C