Pentax 645Z

[BernardLanguillier]

I will be interesting to see if solutions like Camranger/DxO/... support the 645Z.

A major value of more standard solutions is that they are typically supported by a much wider eco-system of creative solutions.

The potential of Prime noise reduction and perfect distorsion correction on 645Z files would open new doors for hand held architectural work, the popular "free style".

Cheers,
Bernard

[Theodoros]

"no market"?

Genres like Photojournalism (especially in rugged environments) and sports/action will still have the same use for a high-speed, built-like-a-tank, low-light-performance, super-AF-tracking bodies like a 1DX.

Also I feel the 5DIII feels like cheap junk when held compared to a 1Ds III. If it was my main camera, rather than backup/second camera on a wedding I'd much rather have the 1DX than the 5DIII/D800 (my choice for a backup camera is very influenced by weight, especially since I'm carrying a medium format camera as the primary camera).

I am clearly referring to 1DS & D3x... my comment has nothing to do with 1DX or D4/S... There is no room for these cameras (like 1DS or D3X) since they now have direct price competition from the "Z" (and with more LL ability) but also from cheaper cameras like D800... put it otherwise: "there is no room anymore for "slow" sensor on an "action" body"...

[Theodoros]

Hi,

Those cameras don't compete with MF at all. 1Ds is about robustness and high speed shooting at high ISO, D3X is 24 MP sensor in heavy duty body.

D800E and Sony A7r are the closest thing to MF, right now.

I guess that the 645Z makes room for some expansion for MF. It also shows that the competition is overpriced. It seems that this may be a serious attempt by Ricoh to stay in the MF segment, as many lenses seem to be available.

A digital back offers more options, but I don't know if that is enough to motivate a 20000-30000$ difference in price.

Best regards
Erik

1DS for LL photography? ...sure you didn't mistook it for 1DX?  See for my reply to Doug above.

[torger]

Even more now than before it's become obvious that you pay about $25k in "inefficiency tax" when you buy a Phase One back, ie you pay for that they can only sell in low volumes, they have no consumer products to borrow technology from, they have a dealer model that requires higher overhead. A product that should cost $10k or even less sells for $35k. The sales force need a great deal of skill and imagination to educate potential buyers what fantastic feature set you get for those extra $25k, or just turn to customers where a high price is not an issue (industrial, institutions), or even an advantage (luxury). I'm not worried about survival of Phase One's current business model just yet, it will be probably even more difficult to sell to the "struggling pro" market, but there are other markets to turn to.

I think it's quite hard though to make a digital back that would sell in volumes similar to what a Pentax 645Z can do. Only(?) tech cam users want detachable backs, and tech cam sales is a more complicated issue (involve more than one company, harder to use etc), especially today when this CMOS sensor don't do tech wides very well.

Hopefully Pentax or Sony will make a mirrorless CMOS MF camera sooner or later, then you have all tech cam table top photography (ie longer focal lengths) covered in a far more affordable package. For landscape/architecture tech cam photography including wides, we're still stuck on expensive CCD backs for yet some time...

[MrSmith]

I know you work hard for the money Doug. 

So do a lot of working photographers, it's not exactly a 9-5 job if it's your sole source of income. Even Doug has to supplement his wedding income by working in sales.
Which is why a good value digital solution that keeps £20k in the bank is not to be dismissed.
If I need a tech-cam I'll hire and the dealer can deliver it in their SUV and give me a branded truckers cap and USB stick as a little thankyou so I can feel good about the 'value added package'

[idillic]

I have a 645D and can offer some comment on a few of the lenses being re-released:

The standard 55mm FA weatherproof lens is good to very good.  
The 35mm FA lens is the sharpest, most aberration free wide angle lens I have used on any format.
Similarly, the 75mm FA and 120mm FA macro lenses are two of the sharpest lenses I have ever used.  I particularly like the contrast & colour with the 35mm & 120mm lenses.  Not sure what it is about them, but I have an 80mm wide angle grandagon lens as part of my now unused 4x5 kit, and it used to give me the most beautiful colour rendition, and these two pentax lenses remind me a bit of that.

The 200mm FA lens is ok.  It is fine for portraits, but I have yet to get the best results for landscape images.

I have not tried the 25mm because the price for me is a bit high.

[Theodoros]

Talking about IQ250 being an MFDB, while "Z" being a camera, I wonder what sales Pentax would achieve if they decided to sell an MFDB specified like the "Z" for all Contax, Mamiya, H1/2/2F/4X, V and the like...  Maybe a version of their 25mm lens too for Contax could be a good idea...  This would bring tears on many current makers  , would increase profits for Pentax considerably  , would provide a cheap solution for view and tech cameras with high ISO capabilities    and would give the MF market a new boost  ...not that the competition would love such a decision from Pentax  , could make them very angry indeed...  Could even make Sony aim for a 54x40.5 sensor for them to have a second version of the back...

I wouldn't like to be a P1 shareholder having in mind that it would cost them insignificantly to make such a decision at no time... Maybe I would even expect them to try and resurrect Contax and have a single line of lenses for both cameras... 

[MrSmith]

just had a look at some of the samples, nice to see some cherry blossom but no pagoda  :’(
all the jpegs look poor because they are jpegs and with some fringing C/A but the high iso examples look potentially very good

[KevinA]

The specs have impressed me so much I nearly find myself saying I want one or I'm getting one.
 Not an impossibility, but I hesitate, history has shown me it probably will not happen for me.
 In lots of ways this is the biggest threat to Canon, more so than the D800. Switching back and forth from one 35mm system to the other as each betters the other is a game for fools. Changing to a MF could be considered a step up the food chain for a lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly, I can see a lot of Canon shooters considering this.
Canon have been squeezing the last drop of goodness out of their technology for a long time, now is the time for the next generation. I keep getting the feeling they have something up their corporate sleeve, I just wonder if it might be a Foveon type sensor. Sigma have shown the strength and weakness of the type. Now if Canon had got one to perform more like the cmos we all use, ironing out or at least smoothing some of the Foveon flaws, we would have a great studio/landscape camera. We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
I just know if I switch to a Pentax MF system, Canon will announce the camera I didn't know I wanted.

[Chris_Brown]

We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.

 

[danlandoni]

The specs have impressed me so much I nearly find myself saying I want one or I'm getting one.
 Not an impossibility, but I hesitate, history has shown me it probably will not happen for me.
 In lots of ways this is the biggest threat to Canon, more so than the D800. Switching back and forth from one 35mm system to the other as each betters the other is a game for fools. Changing to a MF could be considered a step up the food chain for a lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly, I can see a lot of Canon shooters considering this.
Canon have been squeezing the last drop of goodness out of their technology for a long time, now is the time for the next generation. I keep getting the feeling they have something up their corporate sleeve, I just wonder if it might be a Foveon type sensor. Sigma have shown the strength and weakness of the type. Now if Canon had got one to perform more like the cmos we all use, ironing out or at least smoothing some of the Foveon flaws, we would have a great studio/landscape camera. We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
I just know if I switch to a Pentax MF system, Canon will announce the camera I didn't know I wanted.

Pretty much in the same boat as you. I cant keep waiting around though. New technology will always be coming out with 'better' things. Just have to take the leap sometimes

[narikin]

Hmmm. Very definitive statement.

It sounds like a lot of comments when the 645D Mark 1 was released.

Since then Phase One unit sales, sales volume, and profit are all up year over year.

Not an entirely serious statement Doug !  Though I do think there will be some painful discussions at Phase and Hasselblad this week.

Now we know someone can put the exact same sensor in a camera for around $8000, its very hard to swallow their $25,000+ mark up, for an inferior camera body/outfit.  Impossible for anyone to justify I would say.  (And I say this as a Phase One user for 8+ years, with 3 upgrades)

[MrSmith]

I know somebody with a p45/HBlad 500 and and all the lenses from 45-150.
Phase will give him a generous 10k trade-in for an IQ-250 and you now have access to usable high iso and live view so you can finally shoot those lenses wide open (focus is very hit and miss on a 500)

or you could keep your p45 and for half the money of the phase upgrade you could have a pentax system that covers the same focal lengths (bit wider to make up for crop)
i’m struggling to think why you would pay double and gain very little? not everyones situation is the same but there must be a fair few people who were contemplating an IQ-250 upgrade who are thinking again?

[BJL]

Talking about IQ250 being an MFDB, while "Z" being a camera, I wonder what sales Pentax would achieve if they decided to sell an MFDB specified like the "Z" for all Contax, Mamiya, H1/2/2F/4X, V and the like...

My guess is that Pentax is getting little profit from the digital part of the system (most of those profits going instead to Sony), with the goal instead being to increase overall sales of lenses and the non-digital parts of the body; the parts that Pentax itself designs and makes.  The unit profit margin on MF lenses is probably quite high, as needed to defray R&D costs over relatively low unit sales, so anything that increases those lens sales, especially on existing lenses on which the R&D costs have already been incurred, is very desirable.

The clear trend in the DMF business has been towards needing profits from lenses, bodes and such, not just from the sensor plus electronics part that goes into to DMF back.  The four main companies that formerly made DMF backs but did not sell their own lens and body system all eventually abandoned that business model, either by joining with a body and lens system (Phase One, Imacon, Leaf), or by abandoning DMF entirely (Kodak). A Kodak rep. explained that it had to abandon the digital back and DSLR body markets because it was not profitable for them without the follow-on income from lens sales. That was already true in the era of CCD sensors, where that back-makers had a lot to contribute with the support electronics for analog signal processing and conversion to digital; it becomes even more so when all that is handled by the sensor maker and done on the sensor chip, pushing the "added value" to other more traditional parts of the body, the lenses, support services, etc.

So sadly, that last thing that Pentax or any DMF maker wants to put a lot of R&D resources into is helping people to use some other brand of lenses or bodies!

[Paul2660]

The specs have impressed me so much I nearly find myself saying I want one or I'm getting one.
 Not an impossibility, but I hesitate, history has shown me it probably will not happen for me.
 In lots of ways this is the biggest threat to Canon, more so than the D800. Switching back and forth from one 35mm system to the other as each betters the other is a game for fools. Changing to a MF could be considered a step up the food chain for a lot of photographers, rightly or wrongly, I can see a lot of Canon shooters considering this.
Canon have been squeezing the last drop of goodness out of their technology for a long time, now is the time for the next generation. I keep getting the feeling they have something up their corporate sleeve, I just wonder if it might be a Foveon type sensor. Sigma have shown the strength and weakness of the type. Now if Canon had got one to perform more like the cmos we all use, ironing out or at least smoothing some of the Foveon flaws, we would have a great studio/landscape camera. We don't all do sport and wildlife in the dark.
I just know if I switch to a Pentax MF system, Canon will announce the camera I didn't know I wanted.

I am one of those fools, selling off most of my Canon equipment and moving to the 800 series Nikon's.  Never looked back, as the 800 gave me what Canon can't, so for me it was easily justifiable.  It's an individual decision for each photographer and I agree changing back again would make no sense as I really can't see ever needing more than I have with the 800 series. 

Waiting on Canon to follow up their long used 20-21MP lineup to me may be the fools game. 

Nikon, Pentax, Sony, all use Sony chips, and now so do Phase One and Hassi.  Canon still fabs their own chips, and no doubt have had some trouble getting to the same level of DR of the 2012 Sony, 2013 Sony and now 2014 Sony Chips.  Sure if they come out with a Foveon type chip, it may revolutionize everything again, however no one has yet to make one of these that performs very well in low light or can give the same range of DR of a single image that the Sony chips can.  Canon is now getting surpassed even in video, with the new A7s now coming soon.  Only Canon knows whats coming next and they are not talking for sure. 

Competition is great, as it helps to keep prices down, and I would love to see Canon get a new chip set out, and hopefully they might in Sept at Photokina.  However it still may not be available till 2015. 

Paul

[Theodoros]

I know somebody with a p45/HBlad 500 and and all the lenses from 45-150.
Phase will give him a generous 10k trade-in for an IQ-250 and you now have access to usable high iso and live view so you can finally shoot those lenses wide open (focus is very hit and miss on a 500)

or you could keep your p45 and for half the money of the phase upgrade you could have a pentax system that covers the same focal lengths (bit wider to make up for crop)
i’m struggling to think why you would pay double and gain very little? not everyones situation is the same but there must be a fair few people who were contemplating an IQ-250 upgrade who are thinking again?

Or sell the P45+V combo... (for less than 2 months ago) and only buy a "Z" and adapter for your lenses...

[Doug Peterson]

I know somebody with a p45/HBlad 500 and and all the lenses from 45-150.
Phase will give him a generous 10k trade-in for an IQ-250 and you now have access to usable high iso and live view so you can finally shoot those lenses wide open (focus is very hit and miss on a 500)

or you could keep your p45 and for half the money of the phase upgrade you could have a pentax system that covers the same focal lengths (bit wider to make up for crop)
i’m struggling to think why you would pay double and gain very little?

If your friend likes shooting with the Pentax more than with his 500 series, and will not miss the features (1/500th flash sync, vertical shooting without turning camera, waist level viewfinder, robust professional tethering, Capture One support, etc) then he should absolutely go with the Pentax. If he wants to use his 500 series body and can justify the cost of the IQ250 (or an IQ160 which would bring many, but not all the advantages of the IQ250, and also have a larger sensor and slightly higher resolution) then he might want to do that.

The cost is a very important part of the equation, but it's just one part of the equation. You can't put a Pentax on the back of a 500 series and the 500 series doesn't have the autofocus of a Pentax. They are very very very different systems - both with advantages and disadvantages.

[Vladimirovich]

They are very very very different systems - both with advantages and disadvantages.

Doug, can your company then become a dealer for Pentax w/o any issues with P1 ?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Doug, can your company then become a dealer for Pentax w/o any issues with P1 ?

Hi,

Does Pentax even offer a dealer pricing and support structure?

Cheers,
Bart

[Theodoros]

My guess is that Pentax is getting little profit from the digital part of the system (most of those profits going instead to Sony), with the goal instead being to increase overall sales of lenses and the non-digital parts of the body; the parts that Pentax itself designs and makes.  The unit profit margin on MF lenses is probably quite high, as needed to defray R&D costs over relatively low unit sales, so anything that increases those lens sales, especially on existing lenses on which the R&D costs have already been incurred, is very desirable.

The clear trend in the DMF business has been towards needing profits from lenses, bodes and such, not just from the sensor plus electronics part that goes into to DMF back.  The four main companies that formerly made DMF backs but did not sell their own lens and body system all eventually abandoned that business model, either by joining with a body and lens system (Phase One, Imacon, Leaf), or by abandoning DMF entirely (Kodak). A Kodak rep. explained that it had to abandon the digital back and DSLR body markets because it was not profitable for them without the follow-on income from lens sales. That was already true in the era of CCD sensors, where that back-makers had a lot to contribute with the support electronics for analog signal processing and conversion to digital; it becomes even more so when all that is handled by the sensor maker and done on the sensor chip, pushing the "added value" to other more traditional parts of the body, the lenses, support services, etc.

So sadly, that last thing that Pentax or any DMF maker wants to put a lot of R&D resources into is helping people to use some other brand of lenses or bodies!

For Pentax, if adding an MFDB to their system currently, it would mean nothing against the "Z" sales (they would sell the same amount of cameras), it would require insignificant to consider development cost (most of the work that is required for an MFDB is included in the "Z" camera) and multiplying the digital part of the "Z" sales would mean more profit... Its not the same situation building MFDBs as if having a digital camera and add sales by making an MFDB out of the digital part of it... its rather the opposite, you decrease cost further by becoming the major customer for your sensor provider and by producing more products that require no further development.