Bruce wrote: > The real > question is whether 645 will fight 'em or join 'em (them being > digital). I would argue that a less than full frame sensor for 645 > makes less sense than a full frame 35mm sensor due to weight and size > of the supporting lenses.
I feel confident that they will. I'm the first to admit that I'm surprised that Pentax plans to ugrade the 67 although I heard a couple of years ago that Pentax were working on further miniaturization of their Mf cameras (whatever that meant). I'm equally surprised by Hasselblads $30 million investment in a 645 camera and I was surpised about the Contax 645 which must have costed a fortune to develop. And now Pentax again after the rather recent modernization of the 645 system. It is obvious to me that all these manufacturers see a future for their MF system in digital context. If not, they wouldn't have bothered with an upgrade; they cannot all be victim of rotten business decisions - ie. MF is dead etc. > The other very interesting issue is who actually buys MF. 645 seems to > be the realm of Wedding and location work where portability and speed > of operation matter. From what I am seeing and hearing, that group is > already abandoning their film cameras for digital now. There may not > be that many users left by the time a digital solution is available > for 645 and it might be way too expensive. Again I feel confident that sensor price will drop. They have to; they must; they will - the volume may quadruple manyfold and that alone will ensure lower prices. As for the yield rate; well, for any other product of any volume this problem has been solved - I'm sure it will in this case as well. So digital MF will fill the same niche as film MF. As for film it will be around for all foreseeable future. Film, like digital for that matter, is not only a practical choice but also an artistic choice. Some will use film regardless of what happens with digital for more reasons that it is possible to count. Also, Pentax MF cameras has never been marketed at weddings and studio work, but as field cameras. In this segment they still make far more sense than anything digital of comparable quality, to the extent such solutions exist, and will continue to do so for still awhile. Still, I'm baffled by the rumors of a new 67 camera. I would have expected them to just continue with the present one. This, however, show that Pentax may be feeding unlikely niches something that make the proposition of an "LX with AF" from the incredible to the area of the not impossible. P�l
