nice and sealed and I like that catch.

Notice the tripod socket on the side? Pretty slick.

Few more tidbits from a Japanese photo site...

-Sensor is equivalent to 170% of the area of a 35mm full frame sensor

-Dual SDHC slots, writing to both cards at the same time or sequentially

Originally Posted by _L_U_C_A_

SDHC

good thing the image from the last page shows one CF and one SD slot though.

Could have been a prototype perhaps? But yeah, it would be better.

Pentax Japan is showing more of it now on the countdown page and the time bar is 3/4's of the way to launch.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

nice and sealed and I like that catch.

Notice the tripod socket on the side? Pretty slick.

I think Pentax 645's have always had that side socket. I wish they could do that with their smaller bodies.

http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2010...egapixels.html

Now back to the more serious topics - although at one point the 645D was a "$5 task" ;-) Pentax Japan has updated their 645D teaser (memo to Pentax-Japan: please create text-based teasers so we can computer-translate), and DC Watch Impress human-translates it. The new revelation is that the camera will have a 40-megapixel sensor, but they do not reveal the type of sensor (CCD? CMOS? other?) or maker (via Foto Actualidad)

Interesting...

http://thephoblographer.com/2010/03/...ds-new-sensor/

sounds a lot like that new $20k mamiya back...

Photo gear in Japan is typically priced alot higher than it is in the US. I could still see it going for $6500-7000 here....

Its here!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10...pentax645d.asp

Originally Posted by Markitos

Thanks... that's actually what I was referring to, I just forgot to post the link...

Ah!

dual SDs for sure.

but damn, if this thing is sub $10k, that's a hell of a price point to hit. Less than half than new mamiya...

^ yeah, it's basically the drebel of DSLRs or the 5D of FF DSLRs.... Could be amazing and I don't double the IQ will be amazing at lower ISOs. Pentax isn't bad at higher ISOs either, but that's just not the point of this camera.

Anyway, some math:
APS-C sensor = 22.3mm x 14.9mm diagonal 26.82mm
FF 35mm sensor = 36mm x 24mm diagonal 43.27mm
645D sensor = 44mm x 33mm diagonal 55mm
645 film = 60mm x 45mm diagonal 75mm

43.27/ 26.82 = 1.6 for the "crop factor" of APS-C to FF.
43.27/55 = .787 for the factor for the 645D
43.27/75 = .577 for the factor for 645 film.

A 35mm lens is the widest lens available for 645 systems right now, pentax happens to make one. So 35mm * .787 is 27.5mm.
That same 35mm lens on a film 645 body is ~20mm...

So yeah, they're going to need to make some wide lenses for this thing to make it work. If it'd been a "FF" 645 sensor it could be OK with a ~20mm wide angle, but for me at least having a 27.5mm focal length as the widest non fish option won't work. I wonder how long it'll take them to make something wider.

as for pixels/area:
FF 35mm sensor = 36mm x 24mm = 8.64cm²
645D sensor = 44mm x 33mm = 14.52cm²

the 5D/D700 have ~1.45 MP/cm²
the 5Dii has 2.43 MP/cm²
the 645D has 2.75MP/cm²
the D3x has 2.89MP/cm²

so while this sensor is big, it's still got a LOT of pixels shoehorned onto it. The cameras above were picked because they're high MP high IQ FF sensors of their day at least.

And here's a link to the spec sheet for the sensor, for anyone who's interested (I'm looking at you, Porter)
http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...00LongSpec.pdf

I'm concerned that the saturation signal is a mere 42K e-. Great quantum efficiency though.

why would the point at which the sensor saturates, in and of itself, be an issue?

so how does this sensor compare to some of the FF 35mm sensors that are highly regarded then? (5D, 5Dii, D700, 1Dsiii, D3s/x)

Originally Posted by Kilonad

The full-well depth (aka full-well capacity, aka saturation point) describes the number of electrons that a single pixel can hold. Since electrons are generated by incoming photons, it describes the maximum signal level that you can capture, and therefore the dynamic range (to some extent)..

as you hint, DR is a multi-faceted metric. i wouldn't automatically assume that the DR will suffer from a low(er) saturation point.

Originally Posted by Kilonad

It's multi-faceted in the sense that it's dependent on maximum signal level, and what the noise is. Dynamic range goes hand in hand with peak signal to noise. So yes, it will automatically suffer from a lower saturation point all else being equal. The KAF-39000 has larger pixels, a higher saturation point (60K e-), and a higher read noise (16 e- vs. 13 e-). However, its linear dynamic range is 71.4dB, slightly more than the 70.2dB of the KAF-40000 used in the 645D (6dB = 1 stop). No idea what it is for the D3x or 5Dii chips, simply because neither Canon nor Sony have any interest in marketing their sensors to the general scientific community.

fixed

Originally Posted by Idjiit

Too bad you won't be able to buy it in the US, I suppose.

yeah, you really think they won't bring it here?

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-jo...er-645d-camera
http://en.akihabaranews.com/49635/re...hooting-photos
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Pe...=Google+Reader

Apparently is supposed to start shipping to the rest of the world in a few months, according to Luminous Landscape. In the meantime, here's a first look review from them:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...5d-first.shtml

I really shouldn't click that link.....

$10K.....Hmmm

Want

my first thought after watching that though is $10k for 40mp, how many MP with the 1DsIV and 5Diii have this and next year and how will the lenses perform when you compare them heads up? I'd love to have a MF body that's digital, don't get me wrong, but that's a LOT of money for a camera that's only going to have slightly more MP than the upcoming FF 35mm sensors. Less density, but still. It'll be interesting to see some files for sure and to see where the price settles. It'll also be interesting to see when a wide lens becomes available. Doing the math for the sensor crop and 645 to 35mm it's .8 conversion factor with the widest lens being a 35mm, so ~28mm?

oh, and I like how the Rep says there's a tripod socket on each side so "you don't have to buy one of those fancy brackets"... Yeah, people buying a $10k camera probably aren't sweating a $150 bracket?

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

oh, and I like how the Rep says there's a tripod socket on each side so "you don't have to buy one of those fancy brackets"... Yeah, people buying a $10k camera probably aren't sweating a $150 bracket?

Yeah, definitely weird... did you see in the text review that they're developing something "really wide"? Don't know what that means. I kind of have to agree with you about MF digital... This is $10k, and a giant camera, and the 1DsIV will likely be 32mp, $8k, and take all the lenses Canon pros already have. Still, I think it's a game changer in the MF digital world, and will help innovation among some of the other players--I'm shocked, for example, that this is the first digital MF camera to have a decent LCD. You'd think that for ~$40k you'd at least get a decent LCD on your MF back. I know a lot of people shoot tethered in the studio, but geez.

^ agreed, and I still want to see the 1DsIV -vs- this comparison....

The sensor is larger than a 35mm sensor, so it should resolve more details, right?

Originally Posted by thomps6s

The sensor is larger than a 35mm sensor, so it should resolve more details, right?

Yes, emphasis on should... but I'd bet a lot of people would give up (and already do) a little resolution for a camera that a) already works in their current system; b) is more versatile/smaller/quicker/better handling; c) has better noise handling at high ISOs, and d) is cheaper.

I'm not arguing against this camera at all, and I like that it's helping to blur the price point between high end 35mm and MF, but it faces some fierce competition from the 1DsII/IV and D3x.

Originally Posted by thomps6s

The sensor is larger than a 35mm sensor, so it should resolve more details, right?

yeah, that comes down to MP and the area they're squeezed into. As I've seen with the 7D and 5Dii, they're VERY close at base ISOs. The 5Dii has an 8% resolution increase but it also has (slightly) less noise at low ISOs. So it's better but not by a ton. Going from digital 35mm FF to this cropped 645 sensor will have a similar gain (it's 1.3 crop of a full 645 frame). Back in the film days 645 was 2.7 times the area of 35mm and since you used the IDENTICAL film (grain) in each it was a massive difference. Now there are a LOT more variables in there. But MF has traditionally been geared towards low ISO performance either first or exclusively which should make it better than the canon's at the same pixel sizes, then this has more of them AND they're bigger...

Originally Posted by Markitos

Yes, emphasis on should... but I'd bet a lot of people would give up (and already do) a little resolution for a camera that a) already works in their current system; b) is more versatile/smaller/quicker/better handling; c) has better noise handling at high ISOs, and d) is cheaper.

I'm not arguing against this camera at all, and I like that it's helping to blur the price point between high end 35mm and MF, but it faces some fierce competition from the 1DsII/IV and D3x.

yeah, 35mm was basically the happy compromise for most people forever. Smaller, lighter, cheaper, but still had good/great results. The fine art, fashion and wedding people went with MF because they NEEDED the extra resolution but were willing to deal with the negatives.

The area of the sensor still maters, but so does the resolution, so 35 to 645 is closer now than it was on film. 645 is considered the small/light/cheap MF anyway, most of the people going to MF for better IQ in the film days went to either 6x6 so they'd crop to whatever they wanted (and never flip the camera) or 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 because those negatives are all MASSIVE in comparison but with handling that is much easier than 4x5....

Review up on Luminous Landscape:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...t_review.shtml

sounds awesome. its ability to render detail looks phenominal

nice find mark. After shooting with one (very briefly) at the show in NYC I agree 100% on them nailing the controls etc. It's AWESOME to hold and very light as he mentioned. It's a slick setup and I could see myself with one in a few years honestly. Cool to hear him mention a rumored wide prime... It's a 1.3 crop factor with that sensor UP to 645 FLs, then coming back down it's roughly a .8 conversion factor overall? So the 33-xx zoom he had is ~26 at the wide end? If/when they get a nice WA for this bad larry and they're available used for at least half their current price things will get VERY interesting.

A local guy just got one - http://www.flickr.com/photos/harklee/

He seems to be enjoying it.

he makes a point about DOF -vs- diffraction at f/18 in his GG shot, interesting point with such a big sensor.
the rocky beach shot seems to have some insane details in it, but it's only up at 1200px.

From LL:

"There are good cameras, and there are bad cameras. And it has nothing to do with the quality of the files they produce. In 2010, every camera on earth can take a better picture than 98% of photographers will ever need. But almost none of them make it easy or pleasant. Instead, they make it nearly impossible to simply, quickly and intuitively perform basic photographic functions. It's thanks to "feature creep" , the insidious sickness inflicted on us by the software industry, and replicated with soul-crushing vapidity in contemporary cameras design. To wit, I give you Exhibit A, the "Direct Print" button. "

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

he makes a point about DOF -vs- diffraction at f/18 in his GG shot, interesting point with such a big sensor.
the rocky beach shot seems to have some insane details in it, but it's only up at 1200px.

IMO that says a LOT about how much there would be in the original file - being able to tell the difference in a web rez file is pretty sweet.

That reflected tree shot from Yellowstone is freaking sweet!

Originally Posted by MoLS

IMO that says a LOT about how much there would be in the original file - being able to tell the difference in a web rez file is pretty sweet.

I disagree? When I look at my shots on flickr even at 1200 they look pretty sound in terms of DOF and tiny details, when I look at the full files, that's when I can tell if it's a great shot or just OK detail/DOF/focus wise?

Man, they didn't waste any time! Shootout with the 645D, a Phase One P40+, a Leica M9 and a 1DsIII... just starting to read now!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...hoot_out.shtml

That dude's stream is nice, if I hadn't knon which images were shot with the 645D, I wouldn't have know the difference though.