EOS20 wrote:
Pentax will start shipping the 645D globally in December. Prices are $9999.99 US £8999.99 Body Only, £10000 with the DFA 55mm 645 SDM lens:
Thanks for mentioning that. I was just going to post the link myself, until I saw that you got to it first! It's going to be interesting having such an "inexpensive" MF DSLR globally available.
It appears that inexpensive is only part of the story with this thing.
It's tied with the Mamiya DM22 for the most affordable MF digital camera. But it's also got the entire Pentax 645 lens selection, which is excellent. And from a usability standpoint, it's basically a Pentax K7 with a larger sensor...35mm SLRs have always been ahead of MF in usability, but this should narrow the gap quite a bit. Luminous Landscape says it's the first MF he's used with a better LCD than your average point-and-shoot.
Should make things very interesting in MF land..I'll never be able to afford one, but that won't stop me from ogling...
ViscaB wrote:
If I would ever step into it it would definitely be the next generation.
Yes. I would get this generation in a heartbeat but there are a couple of things that makes this generation unsuitable for me:
1) Too small sensor. 44x33 mm is simply too small of a step up from a FF. The standard 60x45 would be a dream. I'm not sure if there are such big sensors yet though.
2) CCD sensor = no live view. This is a show stopper for me. Live view for accurate focusing and DOF preview is critical for me as I like to shoot wide aperture landscapes.
3) No Zeiss glass (I think). I'm not sure at all of this one but I think you are stuck with Pentax lenses.
I'm currently leaning towards waiting for a CMOS digital back and then just get a classic Hassy for it.
denoir wrote:
1) Too small sensor. 44x33 mm is simply too small of a step up from a FF. The standard 60x45 would be a dream. I'm not sure if there are such big sensors yet though.
The actual standard size for FF 645 film is 56mm x 42mm so no, I doubt you will see a 60 x 45 sensor. The naming scheme for all medium film formats are a bit misleading regarding actual size but yes, something larger would be nice. I think a larger issue is that FF 35 digital will likely be 30+ MP within a year at a substantially cheaper price then the Pentax 645D. That's not saying overall image quality will be the same but I bet straight resolution will be.
denoir wrote:
1) Too small sensor. 44x33 mm is simply too small of a step up from a FF. The standard 60x45 would be a dream. I'm not sure if there are such big sensors yet though.
2) CCD sensor = no live view. This is a show stopper for me. Live view for accurate focusing and DOF preview is critical for me as I like to shoot wide aperture landscapes.
3) No Zeiss glass (I think). I'm not sure at all of this one but I think you are stuck with Pentax lenses.
I'm currently leaning towards waiting for a CMOS digital back and then just get a classic Hassy for it. ...Show more →
The tolerances of the classic Hasselblad are not tight enough to handle the accurate focusing. It is okay with the 22MP sensors, and the CV39 can be used with a bit of adjustment, but much above that probably means that you would rarely have a properly focused shot.
These difficulties actually exist with many current systems, and even Mamiya and the newer Hasselblads are often in need of adjustment.
I have a Contax 645 system and a Sinar e54LV 22MP back, and although the tolerances were good enough, and the results were excellent, much better than you can get from even a D3x, I suffered a number of minor glitches which eventually led me not to trust the system, as a whole. I suspected my Contax 645, which was a bit older, but ultimately it could also be that the Sinar support for Contax wasn't quite ripe, or that there was problems with the particular adapter.
These problems plague MF digital systems in general. At some point, the tolerances required for accurate focusing are just too hard to get. The focusing systems are also not always up to the task, or indeed the systems in general. These are small companies without the budgets for something like the Nikon D3 construction or complexity.
Here is an article describing one experienced user's experience with a Mamiya/Phase One system, and beyond.
denoir wrote:
1) Too small sensor. 44x33 mm is simply too small of a step up from a FF. The standard 60x45 would be a dream. I'm not sure if there are such big sensors yet though.
Well the actual size of the 60x45 image is 56mm x 41.5 (actual spec of the Pentax 645 and Contax 645), and there is a sensor available that is extremely close. The Phase One P65+ measures 53.9 x 40.4 which is close enough to be considered to have a 1.0x lens factor.
denoir wrote:
3) No Zeiss glass (I think). I'm not sure at all of this one but I think you are stuck with Pentax lenses.
I blame Phase One for screwing this up. ;-)
But Zeiss does make ZV lenses in the Hasselblad 6x6 V mount which can be used on any 645-format body with an adapter. Further, you can still get digital backs for the Contax 645. Finally, Phase One has introduced 4 or 5 Schneider lenses for their 645 (to go along with the Mamiya lenses) which you might find a suitable replacement.
Yakim Peled wrote:
Why are these necessarily linked together?
A CCD sensor has to be read all at once (global shutter) while a CMOS sensor can be read continuously (rolling shutter). You simply can't get anywhere near the type of refresh speeds needed for live view.
denoir wrote:
A CCD sensor has to be read all at once (global shutter) while a CMOS sensor can be read continuously (rolling shutter). You simply can't get anywhere near the type of refresh speeds needed for live view.
I'm missing something then, because the K20 has live view, and it uses a CCD.
denoir wrote:
A CCD sensor has to be read all at once (global shutter) while a CMOS sensor can be read continuously (rolling shutter). You simply can't get anywhere near the type of refresh speeds needed for live view.
10X. I didn't know that.
DubiousDrewski wrote:
I'm missing something then, because the K20 has live view, and it uses a CCD.
