I think I was comparing the output from a 16mp 35mm SLR replacement,
(Canon), and the output from an 18mp 645D, taking the projected price of
the 645D into account. The output should be comparable. The lenses of
the Canon will be faster. I don't think the Canon will be smaller or
lighter but I don't the 645D is a particularly good place to be putting
product development money. It's too little too late, the competition is
already there, and in advertising terms, if not in reality, superior.
By the time Pentax actually gets the Camera out, most of the medium
format users who need to go digital will be using Canon 35mm. If they
don't need speed they might even buy the Kodak DCS 14c/n, the upgraded
version is supposed to be quite good, and considerably less expensive
than the Canon. That's what Pentax is competing with. Pentax will have
to be clearly superior, I don't think they will be, maybe better, but
not enough to make anyone change systems.
Pål Jensen wrote:
Peter wrote:
"If you're on a budget and who isn't are you going to have two expensive
incompatible digital systems to support or will you use the one that's more
flexible."
REPLY:
If you look at the Pentax 645 NII it is far more flexible in terms of output quality than 35mm. I can shoot at 1600 ISO and get publishable results whereas 35mm in order to yield outstanding quality need to be bolted to a tripod with fine slow film. The same relation is true for digital.
Remember that lots of people have learned to live with bulky, old fashioned MF cameras in order to get better output in spite of more flexibility with 35mm. I don't think a switch to digital will make bigger real estate and less magnification for a certain end result obsolete. Remember too that a Pentax 645D will be similar in functionality and size as a full frame DSLR. So the difference will be smaller than the differences between a Hasselblad and a EOS-1.
Pål
--
A man's only as old as the woman he feels.
--Groucho Marx
