Personally it is a solution I like (apart from the cable).
Lets hope that the 645 DSLR at least supports the old lenses and that this isnt an afterthought like on the ist.
A.
On 17 Jul 2004, at 21:58, Pål Jensen wrote:
Antonio wrote:
Unique? What about the Hasselblad H1 - isn't that a 645 that will take both film and digital backs? Or the Mamiya 645?
I wonder....
The only reason digital back solutions exist (yeah. I know some think its a good idea but still...) is that the manufacturers cannot afford developing a dedicated digital body. It is no coincidence that Leica is the first (and only?) to develp a digital back for a 35mm system camera. They cannot afford developing a DSLR either. Neither Leca SLR's or MF cameras sell in large enough quantities.What these companies does is at best slightly modifying existing cameras and let somebody else develop the digital solution. This, I believe, is the reason why Pentax so far have said no to those who want to develop and sell digital backs for their MF system. I think Pentax will develop it themselves.
Digital back is one of those things that seems like a good idea in theory but upon further thinking is seems like a solution answering question nobody asked. You end up with a hybrid thats going to be more expensive and not doing things as well as dedicated solutions. After all, most people buy digital in order not to use film. Those who do want to use film already own a film body (which apparently is worthless anyway on the used market) and the digital back cost as much, if not more, than a comparable DSLR. I mean, how many owners of the *istD wish that they could put a roll of film in it as well?
I guess if the rumored new digital Pentax 645 is a dedicated digital body then that will be kinda of unique, although not as flexible or indeed desirable as the other systems on the market.
If Pentax base a MF DSLR upon the back solution for existing models then they are definitely choosing a cheap solution. The real possibility for Pentax is to design a DSLR from ground up that take MF lenses (say 645 system lenses). If you remove the film transport from the 645, you not only free lots of space but also remove abot 35% of the cameras depth occupied by the film path, no longer needed. The box shape is rather pointless without a film transport. In short, a Pentax "MF" DSLR could be completely simlar to, say, the *ist D but with a larger mirror box and prism. This camera could in fact be made smaller than a Canon D10. Whats more, savings in developing cost could be tremendous as all their DSLR's could share camera electronics including metering, AF system etc, and basically be the same camera with various built quality and sensor size. If Pentax could make, say, a 22Mpix DSLR with Pentax 645 mount at a size smaller than Nikon and Canon mid level DSLR, it would be!
a bomb. It is perfectly possible. Remember too that Pentax 645 lenses are smaller than Canon L-lenses.
Pål
