PetaPixel

Pentax Announces Its Own CMOS Medium Format Camera, Will Show it Off at CP+

pentax645d_1

So much for a medium format CMOS sensor being a novel idea. Following closely behind Hasseblad and Phase One‘s CMOS medium format announcements is the news that Ricoh is working on its own CMOS MF model, a followup to the 645D that is tentatively being called the Pentax 645D 2014.

Not much in way of official info is out yet regarding the product. What we do know is that the camera boasts the ‘latest, super-high-resolution CMOS image sensor’ (read: probably the same 50MP Sony sensor found in the Hasselblad and Phase One), high-speed response in a variety of photographic applications and a tilt-type LCD monitor.

pentax645d_2

That last fact, at least, seems to be confirmed by these images published by the Korean website PopCo, that show a camera much like the old 645D, only with a tilting screen.

In addition to the 645D, Ricoh will also show off an ‘ultra-wide-angle zoom lens’ (pictured below) designed with the new 645D and digital imaging in mind, a high-performance series macro telephoto prime lens for use with Q-mount cameras, and a ‘Film duplication accessory’ that uses a built-in flash unit and an SLR to create digital duplicates of silver-halide-film images.

pentaxlens

So far, Ricoh hasn’t revealed when exactly the two new lenses or the film duplicator will be released, but we do know that the 645D will arrive in Spring 2014. All of the products are ‘in development,’ and Ricoh will have reference products on display at CP+ in Japan.

(via sonyalpharumors and Photo Rumors)


Image credits: Images via PopCo


 
  • Steven Wade

    Which is not a medium format camera. Take your dumb comment elsewhere.

  • Steven Wade

    Except they are talking about putting sensors like that in ~$3,000 cameras.

  • Steven Wade

    For a USB 2.0, from an unreliable company maybe. Not only that, I can easily take up 100GB from one wedding on my D800. Five times the size sensor means I would need more than just one. That means If I shot 15 weddings I would have buy at least 7 of those, and a backup for each wedding, so really that would be $1120 of the lowest priced hard drive. Not to mention how much RAM it would take to process files that size at a descent rate. Then you have to think about transfer rates, and you don’t want to have wait 10 hours for your files to transfer. Then you’d also have to think about CF and SD cards that can actually hold a good amount of shots. My D800 can take ~350ish on a 16GB card, five times the file size, that’s 70 shots on a 16GB card, that means a card five times the size for a descent hold, which means you’ll probably want a 128gb card which is ~$650, which is 9x the price of a 16gb card and you’ll need more than one. This is anything but an inexpensive upgrade. Especially if they are put in FF cameras.

  • Harry

    Mamia 645DF is 4,400 and you can put literally a galaxy of backs on it including next year’s once they get here. Dunno what the logic is of Pentax’s price point.

  • yhn

    This seems a strange thing to ad. Surely there are enough old film scanners floating around that this is hardly a chief reason to buy the unit.

  • yhn

    You don’t buy medium format for high-speed. Besides, if this is pitched at landscape photographers, one frame a second is plenty unless the mountain is running away!

    Still, no swapping back? Really? Haven’t they heard of Leaf, Imacon, et al?

  • yhn

    I think people are putting too much hope into Foveon. If it was viable, Sigma would have been selling it in great quantities by now. (I don’t know what I am talking about from an engineering level, it just seems kind of obvious to me.)

  • El Guesto

    Never understood the marketing appeal of touchscreens on Leaf’s backs. Why? So you can accidentally reformat your card when your face is pressed against the back of the camera?

  • El Guesto

    You must be new here.

  • Joe Gunawan

    The first one was about $9-10k at launch, I believe. Still a bargain considering the other MFs starts at around $20k for body+sensor

  • http://currentphotography.com/ CurrentCo

    Guess the internet is too stupid too remember how the rest of the phrase goes. “1999 called, they want their camera back”.
    for all these people who can’t seem to figure out what that means… it means I think the camera is ugly.
    good job guys. you all fail! :D

  • Zos Xavius

    The body is cheaper than a back from Leaf, Hassy, etc.

  • Zos Xavius

    Yeah, and can you buy a 45mp back for another $5 grand? No, you cannot. All in all the 645 is a bargain.

  • linkservice

    Since I can’t post links:
    Google images: “645d film duplicator”, among the first results is a picture of the film duplicator with the new 645D and a flash attached.
    It’s a lot larger than I expected…

  • Andy

    I won’t say most but many photographers rent backs by the day or half-day which is why film is still economically viable in medium format. This makes Pentax’s pricing all the weirder.

  • Andy

    We will see full spectrum sensors but probably all of the big manufacturers are a) waiting for the recession to end and b) will all start offering them within a year of each other. I expect 2015 but your guess is as good as mine.

  • imajez

    As pro you should charge for expenses. Hard drives are just that. Basic cost of doing business. Plus your logic/maths seem a bit off as the sensor is not 5x FF in size, sensor size is not correlated to file size anyway and 50Mp the actual file size, isn’t a really whole lot bigger than 36MP.
    Not to mention only a numpty would buy 7 1TB hard drives, you’d buy three 3TB or two 4TB drives. Though if you are being sensible about storage, you do need to consider that you really need a duplicate storage backup and preferably a third copy offsite. All costs that should be included in your professional fees and/or offset against tax.

    Also if you are a machine gun shooter, you wouldn’t really be considering about a MF type camera.

  • pentacus

    They do, however, look a lot less plasticy in real life…

  • Rob S

    Right the 645 is a horrible product. That is why it won multiple Camera of the Year awards….
    Im sorry when did light change because the 645 lenses are some of the best on the market and even old 645 lenses go for top dollar.
    Yes it terrible that Pentax choose the memory card that cost half as much for twice the memory. What a bunch of ass holes.
    Really a D800 competes with MF? In what world?
    Again, what a bunch of jerks Pentax is to produce an entire camera for 1/2 to 1/3 the cost of just a back.
    Funny I thought you said it took deep pockets to play in the MF game. Of course Ricoh could buy Phase One cash and it would not even materially impact their next quarters financials so I guess thats not important any more.
    You are obviously not the target market for the 645D so why do you care?

  • Rob S

    oh right because its what the camera LOOKS like that matters….you know because everyone looks an an image and goes “great subject…but the camera that took it is ugly”

  • Rob S

    ok first off I would love to have the “problem” of my images being just so big that I burn through hard drives. Yeah that really sucks.
    Second – USB 2.0? Really? Try Firewire, eSATA or Thunderbolt. I have an eSATA bare drive dock that is fast as hell and lets me use super reliable drives. I paid less than $100 for my last Firewire drive from WD. Thunderbolt drives have hit less than $100 a TB.
    Third – 16GB card? Um I just bought a 64GB UHS-1 for $38 and it wasn’t an off brand.

    If Pentax put a 60MP sensor in a camera I would figure out how to store my images.

  • t k

    They never had a changeable back on the 645 since the product started in 1984 on film. Back then everyone was also saying why no interchangeable back?.

    Like all interchangeable back system it requires more work, designing a locking system that will last, how will weather sealing be affected… what about power to the back vs the main body, take up more space, and because of that usually changes the ergonomics of the product.

  • James

    You can buy a little over 9 TB of Raw Storage for $300. If space is an issue, don’t let it stay that way.

  • James

    Haha, yeah I thought the same thing until I bought one. The designs are really well thought out, the screen shuts off when you put your eye (or entire body) up to the viewfinder, so accidental button presses really aren’t an issue. Then it really just comes down to, “does it do any good”, and honesty it’s not a huge deal, but being able to change any option with a single tap, and a click of the dial really speeds things up, especially for settings I don’t change often.

  • Aaron Link

    Even the cheapest in your “galaxy of backs” brings your body+back combination to a starting price 50% higher than the Pentax before you add a lens, and that’s with 33% less resolution. Price point, indeed.

  • Dietrdeb

    Granted the camera does look a little last decade, but Pentax made a heck of a 645 in 1999, and I think they still do. If I had the extra 10g laying around I would get one.

  • James

    Well said, although to be fair, if you’re working on a desktop you should be using Internals. It’s cheaper, and you get longer warranties and higher quality drives that way.

  • James

    Resolution plays a bigger role in the amount of space a image will take up, the actual size of the sensor is almost completely irrelevant. Foveon sensors might have 150mp but that leads to only 50MPS (Mega Photo Sites). When de-mosaic-ed into a proper RAW file, it’s going to be a lot smaller than you might think it would be. 150-200mb per shot high ISO would probably be fair. Now given that your D800 averages half that, it wouldn’t be as big of a change as you might imagine.

    So lets say with your new medium format camera you snap off just as many shots as you do with your D800 (1,000 or so) -That’s a bit many for me, buy hey it takes all kinds to make the world go round – then you could expect to get around 200GB of photo’s when you’re done.

    I would imagine that your current setup could handle that much of an increase in demand (it would be like if you shot a second wedding on your way home), but if it can’t, you can buy 32GB SD Cards for around 30 bucks a piece to replace your 16GB cards. I assume you already know this since you’re using a 16GB card but it’s important so ill say it anyways, if you’re shooting weddings professionally you DO NOT want to try and shoot it all on one card, so I would budget around $120 to buy 4 more SD cards rather than even think about buying a 128GB card.

    Now as far as storage and backups go, 3TB drives cost around $120 that’s Seagate or Western Digital If you opt for a 1:1 back up, you could easily store 15, 1,000 200mb-a-shot Keeper weddings on one drive, and then buy a second drive to back them up on.

    All and all, if you you’re serous about wanting this camera, and plan to make any kind of money with it, then the cost of keeping your files should not be something that even crosses your mind.

    If you’re having trouble managing your files as it is, and you really think that it would be crazy expensive to up your storage solutions to match a camera with twice the out put of your current one, then i would suggest putting a fair bit of time and money in to your post production setup, and keeping it in mind just like you would your camera gear, Hard drives Processors and ram have gotten dirt cheap compared to high end camera gear, and if you learn how to do it yourself you will be much better off in our technology intensive profession, but at the very least, it would be worth it to you to get someone on call who knows how to take care of this for you.

    Anyways, thanks for reading what has turned in to this text wall, and if your interested in looking up any of the gear I’ve mentioned I’ll butcher some links below.

    Western Digital 3TB HDD (Amazon)
    amzn (DOT) to/LKfgNZ

    Seagate Barracuda 3 TB HDD (Amazon)
    amzn (DOT) to/1fUlDtV

    32GB SD Card (Amazon)
    amzn (DOT) to/1d7GyJr

  • James

    Glad to see i wasn’t the only one a bit off put by the idea of 1000 shot Weddings..

  • James

    It would sell like hotcakes.

  • James

    They really botched the RAW implementation, that’s the main reason it’s not wildly adopted.

    Trying to do post on their proprietary editing software is slow and painful if not next to impossible for large numbers of files, and I mean sure you could shoot Jpeg, but then what’s the point?

  • http://currentphotography.com/ CurrentCo

    oh don’t get me wrong, I would definitely love to have this camera. but yeah, it doesn’t look like it’s from 2014.

  • imajez

    Not so easy if you are a Mac user, as Apple’s method of making their hardware a fraction smaller for marketing to make more pointless claims, is to remove things like DVD players or space for internal HDs.
    Their new MacPro is a joke in that respect as I’ll need to have numerous external drives/caddies and all the extra spaghetti to connect the bits to be comparable to my current MacPro. So not any smaller and certainly less neat.

  • James

    You should look in to what is called a NAS. Basically it’s a cheap computer with a whole lot of storage on it.

    There are guides on how to set them up, or you can buy them ready made for a premium. but all and all, when you get serious with your storage they’re the best bang for your buck.

    The standard is to use a gigabit ethernet connection throughout your entire network to do transfers, but you could always buy one made with Thunderbolt in mind, if extreme speed is necessary.

    But I think the biggest advantage to a NAS is how easy it is to setup a RAID system on one. The design is to keep all of your drives in one place which lets you use advanced backup tactics, keep your data more secure, and make it easier for you to get to without all of that spaghetti.

  • James

    I think it looks pretty bad ass myself.

  • Imacon Dude

    Funny how the medium format camera manufacturers who survived used swappable backs.

    Weird, eh?

  • Imacon Dude

    I’m not trying to read minds here but I think his point was that a 4500$ body leaves you 5500$ left over to rent backs as needed for when your 120/220 film won’t do.

    Of course, since the client is paying for the rental of your backs, then you’re ahead 5500$.

    This matches my experience, too.

  • I hate filling these out.

    Given the cost of the sensor, I doubt it.

  • imajez

    I’m aware of NAS, but thanks for the suggestion. I prefer to have all my storage local in one tidy box and then back up to the network. Which is sadly no longer posssible with Macs.
    Also I need at least 16 gb of backup and then mirrored, which may be a bit pricey for a NAS.

    I actually have a Windows server not currently being used, that may be going to go in an outbuilding of our new house to be a semi offsite back up/archive. And I’ll probably end up using Thunderbolt 2 for local storage, once t2 devices are properly available in about 2017. ;)

  • t k

    Bronica did not survive after being bought by Tamron, almost all of the cameras have removable backs. Contax are no longer being made by Kyocera. Kowa no longer makes cameras either. Most Fuji Medium Format cameras did not have removable backs. So I dont think that has anthing to do with it,

  • http://currentphotography.com/ CurrentCo

    to each his own. I still wouldn’t mind having one though!

  • Imacon Dude

    Contax was killed not for economic pressures but by greed. It was a consortium and the players each thought they should be earning the lion’s share. The lawyers couldn’t do a deal and the project collapsed. Fuji, on the other hand, drifted into the Hassy orbit. So yeah the ones who survived (Phase One/Mamiya, Hassy) have on-the-fly changeable backs.

  • frank

    Tell that to Contax or Bronica and if not for Ventizz, Hasselblad would be a thing of the past as well.

  • frank

    I wonder who currently owns all of what remained of Contax such as patents, intellectual assets, etc…

  • frank

    I get his point, you can get into a Hasselblad system that allows you to always upgrade by only having to rent the latest and greatest. You’ll also never have to deal with the depreciation of the back either. Then there are those who also use their backs on technical cameras.
    However, owning the back vs renting the back at some point means that you will eventually have put in more capital in rental the initial price of the back + depreciation value on your taxes.

  • frank

    You also take advantage of SATA III’s 600MB/s transfer rates.
    FYI – typical file sizes from my 645D fluctuate greatly depending on the scene. I’ve noticed file sizes between 35-68MB on the HDD or 225MB when opened in PS.

  • frank

    Just how much is Sony charging for the 50MP sensor. People talk a lot about the cost of MF due to the high cost of the sensor. But then Pentax comes out with a camera with the same sensor at 1/2 the price. I think the sensors may actually fairly cheap, it’s just Hassy and Phase One are adding a huge premium to the price because they know pros can will make up the cost of the camera vs film in about 2 years (some even sooner).

  • Lister

    Not looking like 2014 is something positive if you ask me. Most SLRs look like goo-blobs these days.

  • http://currentphotography.com/ CurrentCo

    you make a good point there. I think the 5dmkII is much better looking that the mkIII. It has more pronounced edges but still retains nice curves. the mkIII is just sorta round. furthermore, I think the classic designs are still the best. Hopefully the Nikon DF is a start to a more design oriented dslr market.

  • E-Nonymouse A

    Ricoh website indicates it’s to be branded as the 645D II.