I just received this rumor from Asia - Pentax will be announcing a new lens for its digital medium format 645D camera: Pentax D FA 645 25mm f/4. The Google translation is not very clear, but here are some of the mentioned specs:
- built-in hood lens
- built-in filter holder
- weather proof
- some kind of a special coating/lens element
- aperture range: f/4 - f/32
- 12 lens elements in 8 groups
- minimum focusing distance will be less than 0.5m
- internal focus
- 96° angle of view
- 25mm in medium format is actually very wide - aprox. 20mm in 35mm equivalent.
I was told that this lens will be announced for the CP+ Camera and Photo Imaging Show in Japan (February 9-12, 2011). Pentax is listed in the list of exhibitors for that show. A new compact camera is also expected (it could be more than one new model). The rumored Pentax NC-1 EVIL camera will not be announced in February.
I have been following closely the latest developments around the Pentax 645D since this is the most affordable medium format digital camera (I also saw some amazing large prints at the PDN Expo). The camera was recently selected as "AP Reader Product of the Year" at the Amateur Photographer Awards 2011.
The Pentax 645D costs 10,000 and out of the four official retailers, currently only Adorama and AcePhoto has them in stock.
And finally some Pentax 645D images from flickr:
Related posts:
 to be announced soon){kind=link}
40 Comments
Pentax is listed under “HOYA CORPORATION PENTAX Imaging Systems Division ” on CP+ exhibitors page.
aah, I should have known that, thanks
looks like Pentax is owned by LADA at the moment…
))
Does the 645 have a replaceable back/upgradeable sensor?
WOW ! This looks awesome ! Hope Nikon will come out with a 14-24mm similar solution !!!
don`t think so since it`s for medium format cameras
but i am little bit dissapointed that there will be no EVIL at the photoshow.
I could be wrong, but: I think that was sarcasm. Since Nikon already has that lens (and its extremely sharp even at f/2.8 and you can put it on the D3x), Amein seems to be implying that this development is nothing special.
(Although 40mp is huge.)
no, I actually was’nt sacastic. I simply ment that it was an ingenious idea to put the filter inside the lens, before the bulgy elements. Nikon’s 14-24mm 2.8 (or tokina’s 16-28mm 2.8) are not build to put filters. Unless buying the very expensive lee filter kit, their is no solution. So this concept could be awesome.
25mm on that sensor is what 35mm EQ?
25mm in medium format is actually very wide – aprox. 20mm in 35mm equivalent
On Pentax 645D (33.1mm x 44.2mm sensor) it’s equivalent to 20mm on 24×36 cameras.
On Pentax 645 / 645N / 645NII (42x 56mm film), it’s equivalent to 15mm on 24×36 cameras.
The lens looks very sexy.
And it is very good idea to target weather resistance and provide built-in filter handler.
This lens will rock.
lens or field proportion all depends on sensor size. 645D = 44 X 33, so it’s not a “real” 56 x 41.5mm cam (645 in medium format), it’s justs a bit bigger than a FF sensor.
For what I have seen so far, adapting older 645 lenses provides too much softness, slowness & CA, not speaking of the loss of wide angle. It may still be a nice attempt but I am expecting some real 6×7 – 6×9 & 6×17 (for LF) medium format backs today. This would be great. Unless you want to spend some money, a 24MP Nikon FF with 50mm 1.4, 20mm 1.4 & 85mm 1.4 provides brighter, smaller & more versatile lenses. The DOFF will be the same & AF much faster and accurate.
You are wrong. The sensor itself is nothing. Only the complex optics+sensor does make the sens. The Nikon’s short flange distance (compared to Pentax 645D one) make it _impossible_ to achieve same sharpness at all angles, it’s a physics. BTW, I guess this lens supposed to be primarily the landscapes one, so the lens speed doesn’t matter: aperture 8-11 would be used most time. Another Nikon’s weak point is their color reproduction, especially compared to Kodak CCD one used in 645D.
I love the american typical basic “you are wrong” argument.
No : I am right, & you are entiteled to your own opinion. I was speaking about MF proportions, loss of wide angle regarding the use of older 645 lenses & the very high price vs a very high end Nikon FF DSLR with faster AF & lenses. For the aperture argument, I can use the Tripod, F8-F14 argument for numerous cameras. Those are real physics actually.
Pentax came out with its 1st try but reality is that the sensor is still very small compared to true MF and the price is too high for a body which will be crushed by competition in 2 years. It simply doesn’t make sense to invest in such a slow & expensive system, unless some amateurs have lots of money to spend. In the 90′s, this would be another story, as the camera would compete other systems for at least 10 years, the film, film size & lens used was the real deal for high quality shots.
I totally agree with Amien, a cropped 645 sensor doesn’t make sense at all.
Its 40mp vs. 24mp. Both with excellent sharpness. 645D has mp advantage and some angular advantages. D3x has weight, flexibility, lens cost advantages.
That’s the basic argument.
“Pentax came out with its 1st try but reality is that the sensor is still very small compared to true MF and the price is too high for a body which will be crushed by competition in 2 years.”
Since you’re talking about “slow&expensive” you’re comparing it to the small format. OK, take a look:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/645D/645DA.HTM
Scroll down until you see the pictures; then explain which competition is going to crush them in 2 years, and how.
Of course he won’t be able to explain this
It’s just impossible to get such a resolution with 135 format cameras.
Denis – by your logic, the Leica M9 should have really bad image quality. I’ll agree that a shorter flange distance makes it more difficult, but all designs are a compromise and this is one of the many factors that designers have to deal with.
If you think about the ratio of the flange-distance-to-sensor-size, you’d expect the D700 to have worse IQ than the D300 – yet I can assure you the D700 is quite a bit better. Since the only difference is the sensor (size and design), I think this calls your argument into question.
“Just a bit bigger”, yeah right… LOL
How many “real” 645 digital backs do you know? How much are they?
that is the actual problem, with sensor price going down, we may expect more versatile products. & yes 27% bigger doesnt make a Huge difference, but not being able to use older 645 lenses at true wideness is a real deal breaker.
Problem solved by the 25mm f/4.
to jaad75 : they are plenty of bigger sensors, but only a few brands keep progressing in this field. If you guys were professional photogs, you should be able to compare tools wisely.
Phase One, with their P65+ and the new IQ160/IQ180. Much, much more expensive than the 645D.
For all those insisting there is no need for a “cropped” but affordable DMF: the market said otherwise. The 645D is selling very well, despite not being a 30k euro “true MF”
What is the name of a “Cropped 645″ by the way?
What do we call it? (DX vs. FX, _____ vs. 645).
The 645 is a misnomer. It needs a name and not a term “cropped 645″.
Anyway, it seems like a decent format, if pricing could stay realistic.
The next generation (of photographers) are not concerned with several decades old film lenses, so I don’t think its a disadvantage to not make the most of them. With mps heading toward 100mp, I’m pretty sure the old lenses aren’t going to be so sexy for very long. In the meantime, the standard needs to be born and new lenses made.
Does it really matters? Today’s “standard” will be different from tomorrow’s “standard”, e.g. when (if?) Pentax will launch the next-gen 645D with the bigger 50MP Kodak senzor.
The 645 format itself is smaller than 60x45mm.
Does it really matters? yes & no. DX system has been promoted as the new consumer (d)slr system, but also provides lenses especially designed for it. (smaller & less expensive glass) Pentax should maybe rethink its strategy by providing lenses that fit their new digital medium format crop 645 only.
How tricky to explain to customers that their 5K lens will not provide the same wide angle as on a film 645 body ? Using more glass (more expensive lens) to make it compatible with FF 645 is a bit nonsense, unless they think to come out with a true 645 digital body. I am pretty sur a pro buyer would prefer pay 1K more to gain 2-3mm on his brand new Digital 645D than lose it & make it “compatible” to true 645 film cameras…for the same price !
Please, read my post again – carefully.
Which “crop” are we talking about? For the current 44x33mm 40MP sensor? For a future sensor? If they would go with the available 50MP Kodak sensor (once it’s price become affordable) or another differently sized sensor, what would happen to your “standard” 44x33mm lenses?
Btw, the sensor size is clearly documented. And the lenses are not that expensive.
price is not the point here, proportions are, please read carefully, compare FF 645 film vs cropped 645D sensor, & the nonsense of coming out with lenses that still adapt the older systems. Just think about it. It’s as if Nikon only came out with DX crop in digital & still put on the market FF digital lenses, telle me if I missunderstood it, but from what’s written, the new digital pentax lenses are’nt dedicated to it’s 645D crop system, they are also compatible (& thus wider) with their “FF” 645 film cameras. If this is correct, it is pure nonsense…
You are ignoring what I’ve said. Oh well, I’ll try again (not that I expect any positive outcome):
The 645 Digital system is not restricted to a 44x33mm sensor size; it’s very likely bigger sensors will be used in the future.
And that makes your post “pure nonsense”. It would be like Nikon discontinuing all “full frame” lenses (before launching their first “full frame” camera) – which they didn’t.
Lol, then you did not read carefully what I wrote earlier.
I said UNLESS pentax IS coming out with a bigger sensor very soon, selling lenses that dont reproduce their full wideness on a cropped (& expensive) system is non pure sense.
Finally, if pentax has the real intention of bringing out a FF 645 ( something that NO BODY knows for the moment) , they will ltteraly kill the actual 645D system, which will become an in-between & obsolete frustrating system.
I am not forcing you do the math, but negating some simple evidences isn’t very smart…
Sorry Alex but your argument doesn’t stand up, Amien is right on all points. Would you invest 15K (body + 2 primes) knowing that a body which fits your lenses will or could exist on the market soon ? This would also sink the grey market value of the actual 645D body.
To cover your point, amien and Tom-Becker, Pentax only need to do what other digital medium format manufacturers are already doing: when a new generation with better sensor or electronics is launched, propose an upgrade at a reduced price to those who have bought the former model.
What on Earth is so important to have 44×33 lenses? Why is a 44×33 55mm so much better than a “full frame” 645 one? Because Pentax shouldn’t be allowed to use larger sensors so maybe, just maybe your beloved Nikon will have a chance to catch up?
You, smart one, don’t even realize that a “full frame” 645D (in the near future) would be much more expensive. It looks like you know nothing of the DMF market, maybe even not having a clue about who Phase One is (a manufacturer who just launched several backs, with cropped and “full frame” sensors).
Yeah, the DMF manufacturers are fools and you are smart. I see that now.
Alex, you are acting like a blinded kid. Amien is 100% right but you seem to have great problems with admitting it and reading right. The one who does not get it is you, for sure.
I have a problem admitting someone is “100% right” when he’s not. And I see you are avoiding all my points? Come on, it should be easy to prove them wrong – if you can!
The only thing he was right was a brief comment about “loss of wide angle” – which is solved by the 25mm. The rest is some nonsense about how stupid DMF manufacturers are, and how Pentax would never ever use a bigger sensor. Clueless.
To bad it’s F/4 lens. If that lens it was F/2.8 I was seriously thinking to 645D. The 55mm f/2.8 looks very impresive.
The D FA 55mm F2.8 is also fully compatible with the PENTAX 645N or PENTAX 645N II. The image circle is covering the image area of 645-format film SLR cameras. You should just remove the hood, because it is causing vignetting on the film format cameras. The 25mm will probably nothing different.
It is more like selling full-frame lenses for APS-C cameras. Those lenses cover the 645D and maybe a future bigger sensor. So if you infest in lenses and Pentax decides to put a bigger sensor in the new 645D II you are not screwed with your lenses.
They are not making crop-MF lenses because they are probably not sure and want to have options in the future, and they already have old designs for full format MF.
The 645D is also very unique. It is a bit of a crossover MF DSLR. It is very portable for a MF, weather resistant and is a lot cheaper than other MF. Most lenses are between €1000 and €2000.
It could be possible that this will be a new relative successful market. APS-C made the DSLR affordable for normal people. It is comparable, but at a different scale.
In the arguement over 645D sensor size and lens coverage, what no-one has mentioned is that the 645D benefits from the “sweet-spot” effect with all existing Pentax 645 lenses. The 645D sensor is approx. 62% smaller (by area) than a 56x42mm film frame and so the edges and corners of the coverage of these lenses never comes into play.
I am finding virtually all my lenses sharp right into the corners on the 645D.