# Pentax 645z



## PVS (Apr 13, 2014)

The specs list looks quite promising:
http://photorumors.com/2014/04/12/pentax-645z-detailed-specifications/

And the price tag is quite intriquing..


----------



## Jim Saunders (Apr 13, 2014)

Looks like it has lots of well-thought functionaliy, and I'd certainly try one at a show or whatever. On the other hand the 1/125 sync hurts (even if that is good performance for medium-format) and I'm far enough into EF lenses that I'd need an awfully good reason to either replace them or start a new collection. So the usual FF user's reaction to an MF body, I guess. I wonder how they'll look in five years?

Jim


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 13, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> On the other hand the 1/125 sync hurts (even if that is good performance for medium-format)



Its more the lack of leaf shutter lenses - all the (relatively) new lenses they introduce, but no one thought of that. Those 1/125s were fine for low sensitivity chemical film and packs that had flash durations like todays cheap china portables/simple monolights...maybe Pentax hopes for a global shutter?

Now without that major selling point mainly detail reproduction remains, considering the current top shelf small frame lenses & the linear resolution differential that's not as much a reason to spend lots of money. That A7r+Metabones for now and the saved money for the next generation is quite reasonable.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 13, 2014)

If the system was really aimed at the professional portrait/ wedding profession then one or two leaf shutter lenses would be introduced. ( For high speed sync ). Lack of this gives away the intended Market. However it's interesting that there's a move towards MF once again costing ( only) twice that of a top end 35mm system but offer considerably greater resolution. 

Trouble is though, from my point of view, in situations where I want MF quality I can take three vertical frames and get a format that's larger than this MF anyway whilst still retaining the high versatility of the FF system.


----------



## eml58 (Apr 14, 2014)

Sporgon makes an excellent point, I've been sitting on the fence for some time regards the Phase One IQ280, now we have the IQ250 CMOS Sensor, so things are moving along with MF, except the price of course.

The new Pentax perhaps begins to see this Price disadvantage begin to close to somewhere closer to an expensive dslr ff package at around 10k.

I like the fact that this Pentax has moved the fps forwards to around 3fps, as against the Phase One of +/- 1fps, I think it hurts Pentax though that they have crippled the system with no Leaf Shutter lens options, that's a major draw for the Phase One & Mamiya.

I note that Leica are putting forward another MF system, either an upgrade to the S2 or a new system, so there appear to be some positive moves this year in the MF arena, I really do hope Canon drops something similar into the mix.

But as Sporgon pointed out, there are options for MF files open to current dslr owners, in particular in the Landscape area. Doesn't quite work though with Portrait or still life, yet.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 15, 2014)

It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
What's the buffer depth in RAW?

I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
> What's the buffer depth in RAW?
> 
> I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.



You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,152
http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,312


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 15, 2014)

9VIII said:


> It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
> What's the buffer depth in RAW?



Guess in detail that depends on the raw format used. Pentax's own? Or DNG? About 10 framis iirc.
Partially the body dimensions are a result of the lenses. At least the older ones are designed for good old chemical film. Which comes with a certain minimum depth for the mirror box.
Another reason is ergonomics. Despite the larger weight working with a MF is much less tiring thrn with something NEX/A7 sized.



> I guess it's a nice product for what it is, but I still don't see it being 3x better than a 5D3/D800.


Those two are not the best comparison - with either the better viewfinder or zebras the MF wins, not because of the technical details, but for the ease of making actual use of them. If you want to take the guesswork ot of the equation the A7r would be the most fitting small frame counterpart.
But yes, at the moment it has a, in linear terms marginal, resolution advantage. The design feature that makes such a camera a no brainer for high end commercial photography is missing though. ???


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 15, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about.
> 
> http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,152
> http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,312


It's still pretty fat if you look at the overhead or side views, but I'm betting one peek through the huge bright viewfinder would erase any concerns.



Sporgon said:


> If the system was really aimed at the professional portrait/ wedding profession then one or two leaf shutter lenses would be introduced. ( For high speed sync ). Lack of this gives away the intended Market. However it's interesting that there's a move towards MF once again costing ( only) twice that of a top end 35mm system but offer considerably greater resolution.
> 
> Trouble is though, from my point of view, in situations where I want MF quality I can take three vertical frames and get a format that's larger than this MF anyway whilst still retaining the high versatility of the FF system.


I agree on the sync, but for architecture, product photos, etc. I'd think the resolution would be great. Also, think about three vertical frames (150MP) with this bad boy!


----------



## moreorless (Apr 16, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > It's unfortunate that the sensor size isn't even twice that of full frame, I have to wonder what it is that makes the body so much bigger when the sensor is only 10mm taller?
> ...



As has been mentioned look at the overhead view, a massive difference in terms of depth between the cameras.

The reason the 645D is so much deeper than FF dispite the sensor not being THAT much larger is I'd say because its having to deal with the legacy flange distance of the old "full frame" 645 system than a whoping 70mm.

Compare the 645D's depth to the Leica S2...

http://camerasize.com/compare/#211,391

The formers sensor might be a little taller but that's a pretty massive difference which I'd guess is down to Leica having a purpose made mount with a much smaller flange distance.


----------



## PVS (Apr 17, 2014)

1/125s will be bummer for outdoor shooting but for anything inside the studio.. Anyhow, if it's an important matter one can always override this by using manual 75&135mm leaf shutter lenses @1/500s.

The lack of interest and excitement for such a versatile high-res machine like this one on this forum is beyond me.
Anyway, enjoy these samples:
http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.uk/en/medium-format-digital/images/samples/PENTAX-645-Z.html


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 17, 2014)

moreorless said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



I take your point, a bit, but the cost of re-engineering everything would have moved this well out if the $8,500 realm. The Canon 1Ds back in 2002 cost $8,000, a new 1DX is over $6,000.

Anyway here are few numbers for the number crunchers.

Pentax 645Z - 6.1 x 4.6 x 4.8" / 15.5 x 11.7 x 12.2 cm $8,500
Hasselblad H5D - 6.02 x 5.16 x 8.07" (15.3 x 13.1 x 20.5 cm) $13-44,000
Leica S - 6.3 x 3.1 x 4.7" / (16.0 x 8.0 x 12.0 cm) $22,000
Mamiya RZ22/33 - 6.5 x 6.1 x 5.2" (16.5 x 15.5 x 13.2 cm) $11-18,000


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 17, 2014)

PVS said:


> The lack of interest and excitement for such a versatile high-res machine like this one on this forum is beyond me.



Keep in mind that it sits right between the much cheaper(+lens sharing) A7r which offers almost the same linear resolution and the established MF systems, with the latter offering a much broader selection of backs, lens options and widespread rental to make case-by-case useage feasable.
Its neither for those who are on a budget nor for those who aren't, but in some limbo inbetween.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 17, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I take your point, a bit, but the cost of re-engineering everything would have moved this well out if the $8,500 realm. The Canon 1Ds back in 2002 cost $8,000, a new 1DX is over $6,000.
> 
> Anyway here are few numbers for the number crunchers.
> 
> ...



The issue is I'd guess not the cost of the camera as I can't see why using a smaller flange distance that better matched the smaller mirror needed for a 44x33mm sensor would increase costs greatly but rather lens cost/support.

You can see that not only aren't there many new lens options(25mm, 55mm, 90mm macro) the cost of them is more inline with other modern high end lenses, Its only the only cheaper film 645 lenses that would allow the Pentax 645 system to be a budget option.

Still I think a better route could have been to go with a smaller flange distance and just offer a converter for the larger lenses. For the rich amature market especially I think the Pentax's massive block form factor doesn't really sell itself well.


----------



## PVS (Apr 17, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> PVS said:
> 
> 
> > The lack of interest and excitement for such a versatile high-res machine like this one on this forum is beyond me.
> ...




Coming from the film era and having owned various MF cameras I guess I don't belong to the linear resolution bandwagon theorists, thus my lack of understanding for lack of appreciation for a tool such as this.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 17, 2014)

This would have been a shut up and take my money moment until I saw that sync speed.


----------



## Halfrack (Apr 23, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> This would have been a shut up and take my money moment until I saw that sync speed.


Why? Light it with HMI's or LED's and roll with it. Yes, it sucks that it doesn't support a leaf shutter, but with lighting options currently out there, we can make it work. There are a few leaf shutter options on the Pentax 67, I wonder if they'll work with the 67 adapter 

Personally, I'm excited to play with one. I'm even considering it an addition to what I currently shoot, a H4D-50. Things like shutter speeds faster than 1/800th, and ISO's going through the roof.


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 23, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > This would have been a shut up and take my money moment until I saw that sync speed.
> ...



For HMI - That Arrimax isn't exactly portable, esp. not if you figure in its power supply. Or cheap, they cost much more then the leaf shutter capable alternatives. And thats if you need just one.
And LED? How exactly do you want to put ~200klx on your subject with those? Preferable from a reasonable distance. A superdino suddenly seems tame, and the few dollars for the LS turn out to be a bargain.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 23, 2014)

Lawliet said:


> Halfrack said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


A superdino? I've never seen one before but that looks awesome! And yes, LEDs aren't quite there yet in terms of overpowering the sun.


----------

