Another 645 Digital


PeteL

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 18:45
Well there has been another Digital 645 Medium Format Camera announced,link This time by Phase one and Mamia and the price looks to be even more competitive than the one unofficially quoted for the Pentax 645D. With N-k-n reportedly entering this arena too i hope there is going to be room for everyone to fight it out!

Regards - Pete

ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 19:03
They have had DMF cameras out together for a while (as have Leaf, Sinar, Rollei, H'Blad among others), but you should note that the price quoted is body only, excluding the sensor back. Pentax's 645D will probably be cheaper, when you consider that a camera back costs around 12000, that totals 16000 altogether without lenses (at the current > exchange rate)

With rumoured prices around $11000 USD, taking into account that the prices of pentax gear in the UK is usually a similar number, but a different currency, we're probably looking at 8000-10000.

[edit]

According to the british journal of photography, the 645D price is actually lookin more like 5000-6000 (Source: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=868986 ), which is a hell of a lot less than the Mamiya/PhaseOne when combined with the camera back
http://www.behance.net/robbranigan
K20D, DA18-55II, FA50 1.4, DA10-17
To buy: Metz 58 AF-1, DA*50-135, DA12-24, DA100M
Last Edited by ikillrocknroll on 28/09/2009 - 19:09

Malo1961

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 19:07
You might want to read it again, Pete. Its €4,290. body only without the digital back. That needs to be purchased separately from Phase one, Leaf Mamiya or others. . So you can safely add
another € 7.000 - 10.000
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

ikillrocknroll

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 19:10
Yeah my quote of 12000 was for the Hblad39, as I couldnt find any other prices online


Theres no need to stress, Pentax will easily bring out a camera for cheaper.
http://www.behance.net/robbranigan
K20D, DA18-55II, FA50 1.4, DA10-17
To buy: Metz 58 AF-1, DA*50-135, DA12-24, DA100M

Hardgravity

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 21:10
I thought the 645 market was only a small one?

With all the companies releasing models will that bring the price down so us mere mortals will be able to afford one?

Considering that release prices drop by roughly a third in the first year it looks promising.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

PeteL

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 21:32
ikillrocknroll wrote:
They have had DMF cameras out together for a while (as have Leaf, Sinar, Rollei, H'Blad among others), but you should note that the price quoted is body only, excluding the sensor back. Pentax's 645D will probably be cheaper, when you consider that a camera back costs around 12000, that totals 16000 altogether without lenses (at the current > exchange rate)

With rumoured prices around $11000 USD, taking into account that the prices of pentax gear in the UK is usually a similar number, but a different currency, we're probably looking at 8000-10000.

[edit]

According to the british journal of photography, the 645D price is actually lookin more like 5000-6000 (Source: http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=868986 ), which is a hell of a lot less than the Mamiya/PhaseOne when combined with the camera back

You are absolutely correct! I missed that all important line.
Still makes me wonder if the market is big enough for all of these new Medium Format Camera`s? especially with Nikon declaring an intention to enter the fray too.

Best Regards - Pete

Malo1961

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 22:14
Quote:
Still makes me wonder if the market is big enough for all of these new Medium Format Camera`s? especially with Nikon declaring an intention to enter the fray too.

Personally I think it's not a question of enough market.
Do you really think Canon or Nikon can afford to even R&D the MF Digital market?
They are already confronted with a costly update of their current FF lenses, to meet the demands of the new high end sensors.

Even if Pentax (with all their knowhow and expertise regarding the 645 system already available) actually can sell the 645D for a killer price, they still have to invest hugely to bring out new lenses who will do the high resolution sensors justice. The old ones floating the s/h market simply won't cut it.

So...with the exception of Pentax, I don't believe the major players of the Dslr market will join in. It will remain a niche market with nothing to win, but a lot to loose. (for them, that is)
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

Hardgravity

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 23:01
So, no reasonable priced 645s then.

As for the lens factor, the Pentax glass already available should provide decent quality images.

It does on the DSLR front where backwards compatibility is a big thing.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

Malo1961

Link Posted 28/09/2009 - 23:15
Hardgravity wrote:

As for the lens factor, the Pentax glass already available should provide decent quality images.

I am sorry, HG
But when I am splashing out the expected amount of money for a 645D decent isn't what I am willing to sign for.

I say it again. All the 645 lenses on the s/h market will not have enough resolving power to cope with the micro detail of this days new MF format sensors.

Even Leica with their S2 was forced to bring out a new series of lenses, specially made for that camera and his capabilities.

They (pentax and all the other brands) got away with it, due to the sweet spot of the Old school FF lenses used on aps-c cameras.
And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.
Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?
Best regards,

Martin.


Curious about my photography?? Just Follow the Light.

Hardgravity

Link Posted 29/09/2009 - 09:36
Point taken Martin.

I still think that a lot of potential owners would start with 'old' glass to see how things go and, as we do with DSLRs move on to a digital lens when the time is right.
Cheers, HG

K110+DA40, K200+DA35, K3 and a bag of lenses, bodies and other bits.

Mustn't forget the Zenits, or folders, or...

I've some gallerieshere CLICKY LINK! and my PPG entries.

ChrisA

Link Posted 29/09/2009 - 09:51
Malo1961 wrote:
And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.

I understand this logic, but I thought the whole point of medium format was for producing enormous enlargements.

6 x 4.5 isn't even as much as twice the linear dimensions of 35mm - it's only 1 2/3 = 1.67 times as big (ok, it's very nearly twice as big in the 4.5 dimension).

Given that, then with a 645 lens of less resolving power than a 35mm counterpart, wouldn't you expect the maximum size of a 645 print to be less than 1.67 times the maximum size of a 35mm print, all other things being equal?

Not sure what I'm missing here - I don't see why, if very large enlargements is the goal, MF lenses don't have to be at least as good as 35mm ones.

Edit: and how does the quality of the enlarger optics get factored into all this - presumably it's no good having an amazingly sharp negative if the enlarger isn't equally good.

I've only really started musing on this since I blew the dust of my old negative folders, and it's making my head hurt already!

Quote:
Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?

What's the theoretical number of megapixels from a 645 negative?
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.
Last Edited by ChrisA on 29/09/2009 - 09:53

Tooks

Link Posted 29/09/2009 - 10:15
ChrisA wrote:
Malo1961 wrote:
And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.

I understand this logic, but I thought the whole point of medium format was for producing enormous enlargements.

6 x 4.5 isn't even as much as twice the linear dimensions of 35mm - it's only 1 2/3 = 1.67 times as big (ok, it's very nearly twice as big in the 4.5 dimension).

Given that, then with a 645 lens of less resolving power than a 35mm counterpart, wouldn't you expect the maximum size of a 645 print to be less than 1.67 times the maximum size of a 35mm print, all other things being equal?

Not sure what I'm missing here - I don't see why, if very large enlargements is the goal, MF lenses don't have to be at least as good as 35mm ones.

Edit: and how does the quality of the enlarger optics get factored into all this - presumably it's no good having an amazingly sharp negative if the enlarger isn't equally good.

I've only really started musing on this since I blew the dust of my old negative folders, and it's making my head hurt already!

Quote:
Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?

What's the theoretical number of megapixels from a 645 negative?

That's an interesting question!

I've read a few debates on this, and the general consensus (dependant on many variables such as film speed etc) is that 35mm film is equivalent to 4 to 12 Megapixels, and Medium Format (120 film) equivalent to approx 50 Megapixels.

All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...
Last Edited by Tooks on 29/09/2009 - 10:15

ChrisA

Link Posted 29/09/2009 - 10:30
Tooks wrote:
All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...

120 film is 2 1/4 inches square, isn't it? That's 57.15mm (is that the '6', of '645'?)

The area, then, of a 120 square negative, is 3266 square mm, compared with 864 (= 24 x 36) for 35mm.

That's 3.8 times the area of a 120 negative.

When I scan a 35mm colour negative at 8 bits, I get a 68 Mb TIFF file. At 16 bits, I get 138 Mb.

Are your negs colour or black and white?
.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

johnriley

Link Posted 29/09/2009 - 10:48
The essential thing is that we know that medium format produces better quality than 35mm.

When related to digital imaging the essential things will be the increased number of pixels and probably lower noise as the pixels themselves may be larger.

When Pentax design the 645D and its lenses they will make sure that it means a better image, otherwise no-one would buy it and there would be no point.

Full frame sensors that we have at present don't really always produce dramatically better images than APS-C so I presume the logic is to go for something with a really big jump in sensor size that does actually make a difference.

I don't want to go into huge detail, but the sharpness on the print will relate to the circle of confusion that we allocate for the format and the resolution in lpmm on the print. This also depends on viewing distance.

Very complicated to describe all the inter-connected factors involved, but we can be sure that medium format leads to bigger, better images. We can see that with our own eyes.
Best regards, John

Tooks

Link Posted 29/09/2009 - 11:08
ChrisA wrote:
Tooks wrote:
All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...

120 film is 2 1/4 inches square, isn't it? That's 57.15mm (is that the '6', of '645'?)

The area, then, of a 120 square negative, is 3266 square mm, compared with 864 (= 24 x 36) for 35mm.

That's 3.8 times the area of a 120 negative.

When I scan a 35mm colour negative at 8 bits, I get a 68 Mb TIFF file. At 16 bits, I get 138 Mb.

Are your negs colour or black and white?

645 120 film is 56 x 41.5mm (or 6 x 4.5cm) so the surface area is 2324 or 2.68 times 35mm film?

The scans I have are mainly black and white landscapes, in 8 bit. Checking through some of the colour 16 bit scans, they are actually quite a bit bigger (approx 300MB).

I will await a 645D with interest, but it's not likely something I will be able to afford unfortunately! Meanwhile, I'm still having a bit of fun with the Pentax 645!
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.