Pentax canceling the 645 Digital to focus on K-series DSLRs?

Pentax's 31.6 megapixel medium-format 645 Digital has been announced for over a year now -- we've even seen one in the flesh -- but it's never actually shipped, and now it looks like it never will. According to Impress, Pentax is killing off its digital medium format cameras to focus on K-series DSLRs, but the 645's film versions will live on. Considering the ever-more-competitive field of excellent prosumer cams out there, we can't say we fault the decision, but if there are any engineering samples lying around, we'll be happy to take 'em off Pentax's hands.

[David Vogt @ Mar 8th 2008 4:10AM]

Too bad, I was hoping digital medium format cameras would come down in price, but things like these certainly don't help. Look's like I'll have to save up some more.

[Ayman @ Mar 8th 2008 4:30AM]

I can see why they dropped it though it has superb specifications, it looks bulky (even for professional cameras), and doesnt seem user friendly,(can you Imagin trying to take pictures with a camera the size of your head)

[roflercopterer @ Mar 8th 2008 4:51AM]

I don't know how much experience you have with medium formate photography but the are bulky because the produce a much larger exposure.

Most DSLRs aren't even full frame 35mm sensors. I'm pretty sure all digtal 645 backs are a 6cm by 4.5cm sensors just like the film negatives (don't quote me on that though).

[Temple @ Mar 8th 2008 9:33AM]

The camera is not bulky for a 645 MF camera. A "full-frame" DSLR such as the Nikon D3 or Canon 1DsIII is 24x36 mm, a medium format sensor is 48x36mm, the 645 frame is 60x45 mm. So these medium format sensors are more then twice as large as even a 'full-frame' 35mm DSLR.

I'm not sure about this Pentax, but a trend for proprietary backs have started to emerge in medium format digitals (such as the Hasselblad H3D that can only accept proprietary backs; compared to the open H1/H2). The Mamiya RZ/645, Contax, H1/H2 can use any digital back made by Leaf, PhaseOne, etc.

The point being, the expensive part of these MF camera isn't the camera itself but the digital back (which range between $7k-30K+). Hence, while releasing a new body may be great, the sales of the camera will be limited by the sales of these incredibly expensive digital backs. Also, currently, companies like Leaf are giving away a free Mamiya 645 with the purchase of a digital back. It might not be the most profitable market for Pentax to enter.

[kaztm @ Mar 8th 2008 7:50AM]

You are not reading the article correctly.
It says that Pentax "has halted" (not canceled) the development of medium format digital camera "based on 645 Digital", but they will still continue to develop medium format digital cameras.

[David Vogt @ Mar 8th 2008 11:54AM]

What is this all about? And while we're at it, the correct definition of photography involves "writing with light" and has little to do with art or craft.

[Peter J. Lupo Esq. @ Mar 8th 2008 12:28PM]

David Vogt writes: "the correct definition of photography involves "writing with light" and has little to do with art or craft."

So true.
Dreams and stars are written with light. :O)

Find the DSLR that agrees with you so much that it becomes an extension of your being, then head out and take those pics!

Peter J. Lupo Esq.
antiaging4geeks.com

[Jeff @ Mar 8th 2008 12:30PM]

er... what was the point of that?

Oversimplified definitions? why?

(also, 1 lux = one lumen per square meter, not just "light" - and by your definition of "Photography" apparently my macaroni necklaces are also photography?)

Seriously, i don't see the point of posted a few half-truth oversimplified definitions of things that are basically irrelevant. wtf?

[Jeff @ Mar 8th 2008 12:33PM]

oohh wait i see now, he's just spamming out his URL... with semi "relevant" nonsense attached.

duh.

[Jeff @ Mar 8th 2008 12:34PM]

thanks, commenting system. ...that was supposed to be @ "Peter J. Lupo Esq." above. :\

[Peter J. Lupo Esq. @ Mar 8th 2008 10:15PM]

Hmmm...much anger in him...

There is nothing but bleakness in this heart.

Me: millionaire lawyer with newly built McMansion just joyfully entering the blogosphere, engaging in conversations and interactions, just getting the hang of it, and, without shame, since Engadget seems to allow 3 URL links per post (I never exceed 1), leaving a backtrack to my own humble effort.

Is there anything so wrong with that? :O(

You: struggling blogger who 'needs' this. I do not hold anything against you, nor do I fault you for the hostile post left on my site, but, I implore you not to take comments sections so seriously. Enjoy, Jeff. It is but a game, and the technology world is giddy fun. :O)

Peter J. Lupo Esq.
antiaging4geeks.com

[Jeff @ Mar 8th 2008 11:41PM]

blah blah blah, here's my link.

get a job.

[Peter J. Lupo Esq. @ Mar 8th 2008 11:53PM]

Jeff says: "blah blah blah, here's my link.

get a job."

My happy zen has been dented by unwarranted anger and hostility. :O(

I am a lawyer in telecommunications:

My current 'job' is helping cities locate and acquire the sites necessary to launch Post-9/11 First Responder's Networks (for emergency response personnel such as fire, ambulance and police), to better protect said cities from 9/11-style tragedies.

It is a proud and patriotic assignment, one that I undertake with pride.

What, pray tell, do you do, Jeff?

Peter J. Lupo Esq.
antiaging4geeks.com

[Jeff @ Mar 9th 2008 4:22AM]

Let me rephrase: Spend more time at your job and less time posting faux "relevant information" spamming out your link.

...and for the record, i have no interest whatsoever in what you like to tell people you do for a living.

PS: you seem to think "spamming" means more than 3 links per comment. those are engadget's rules, sure, but then there is taste, and also the community norm. Your link (and repeating your name at the bottom of every comment, regardless of the fact that it's ABOVE every comment) is both tasteless (reeks of "i'm posting an irrelevant comment so maybe you'll look at my irrelevant site!") and is outside of the community norm (generally the only people doing that are doing it precisely for the reason listed above) - and this is not just the engadget community, i'm sure very few people appreciate it at mikeabundo.com, menshealth, wired, xbox360fanboy, pcmag, and betterthantherapy, to name a few of the other sites to which you've been posting irrelevant crap (adding your link at the bottom, of course).

but, you know what? do whatever you want. you're obviously more determined to spam your silly little URL all over the place than you are interested in actually participating in a community for the sake of the community itself. ...so knock yourself out.

[Jeff @ Mar 9th 2008 4:30AM]

Here's the thing, Petey: Add your link to your profile. If people are interested in who you are, and what your site is, they'll click on your NAME, and from there be able to get you your site.

If you do this very basic thing, your comments might actually maintain the appearance that they are something you wanted to say about the post (or about someone else's comment.) ...continually posting your link below every comment only makes your comment read as a thinly guised attempt at commenting for the sole purpose of spamming out your link again. ....regardless of your intentions.

Otherwise you're ignoring people telling you that you look like a spammer.

[Peter J. Lupo Esq. @ Mar 9th 2008 5:36AM]

Jeff,

I am quite new to this, so maybe our content seems irrelevant to some, and I may also need to learn more about internet manners, but we are not pointless to all, as evidenced by the feedback thus far, calling it quite unique and interesting.

Quote: "i have no interest whatsoever in what you like to tell people you do for a living."

Like to tell people I do?
I have little to prove, of course, but could, if challenged and offended, produce a field service agreement to absolutely verify this fact.
Proud and patriotic, but humble, and not patriotic in a beer swilling, flag waving sense, more in becoming a better person in order to better serve self and nation. :O)

And, our site is wonderful and no amount of hatred and negative energy can change that. Enjoy.

Speaking of 'get a job', has not an intensely passionate online persona such as yourself more enlightened things to do than attack people who have done nothing to you?

And, for what it is worth, I am but a fit, athletic, 37 year old, but my fellow blogger, Paul, on the other hand, almost unique at 39, has already been contacted by a few dermatologists and skincare lines looking for him to represent them!
Yay! (again, verifiable, if challenged, though in only one case was it a result of our site and not an agency).
Thus, we have a unique, almost irreproduceable, vantage and feel that we should sound our barbaric yawp over the rooftops, and are hurting noone in doing so.

One final note: we are sensitive.
I will sleep on your cruel comments and see if they have merit: whether my posts are as vapid and insubstantial as you say. If so, then, make no mistake, they will improve.

Gadflies are not necessarily negative. Some good will come from this, doubtlessly :O)

Peter J. Lupo Esq.
antiaging4geeks.com

[Peter J. Lupo Esq. @ Mar 9th 2008 6:15AM]

Jeff says: "Add your link to your profile. If people are interested in who you are, and what your site is, they'll click on your NAME, and from there be able to get you your site."

I honestly do not know how to do this and can't seem to access my profile. :O(

[Jeff @ Mar 9th 2008 1:18PM]

"like to tell people"

yes: you apparently LOVE to tell people what you do. You jumped at the opportunity, and it still doesn't interest me in the least.

The point is, you carried on with the appearance of a spammer, and so i treated you like a spammer. (skum) ...even so, i did not, as you put it, "attack people who have done nothing to you?" First of all, you need to learn to separate yourself from your comments. what started this whole mess was me asking WHY you posted seemingly irrelevant comments, albeit rudely, and then realizing you appear to be spamming.

But "attack you"? As far as i remember, i made no ad hominem argument (never attacked YOU, but called you out on your actions. big difference.) Interestingly, i questioned your actions, and YOU were the one brought in the name calling.

Please try to avoid immediately resorting to Ad Hominem arguments, Mr. Lawyer-pants.

And yet another interesting point: you spent no time replying to what i actually said, and the whole comment talking about who you are and what your site is... relevant to our discussion? no. reeks like spam? yes. PLEASE keep making your site, it's apparently important to you, but maybe try having some taste in how you spam it out.

Would you not think it weird if someone came up to you on the street and said "Hi! do you like movies? movies are great. Have a great day! - here's my card, no, it has nothing to do with movies, but i want to make sure everyone who sees me or talks to me gets my card - regardless of if they're interested in what i do or not!" ...how you act online is analogous to the real world in many ways. take that into consideration.

[Jeff @ Mar 9th 2008 1:26PM]

woah woah! that last comment you made... something felt so much more honest! i can't quite put my finger on it.....

anyway: click on your name.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/11/10/commenters-learn-how-to-change-your-engadget-password-edit-you/

that should help you out.

(i can't really help you when it comes to looking less like a spammer and more like a PERSON at all the other places you *appear* to be spamming, like techdirt, boingboing, lifehacker, valleywag, forbes, joystiq, technet, menshealth, etc. ...but i'm sure at least some of them have sophisticated commenting systems that have PROFILE options. Also, go sign up for a "typekey" account and start centralizing your "profiles")

I tend to be easier to get along with, or at least more helpful, when i'm not talking to what-i-believe-are-spammers (but only very slightly.)

[Peter J. Lupo Esq. @ Mar 9th 2008 10:03PM]

You are right.

Even from a selfish perspective (that is, if I wanted nothing more than to promote my site), you are right:
Indirect promotion is much more likely to be effective with a sophisticated audience and community than spamming, more Banana Republic than Old Navy, more Nieman Markus GQ advertisement than Dave's ebay system informercial.

Subtly promoting brand awareness through indirect marketing efforts is kind of similar to selfless messaging with a discreetly placed backlink:
I think every type of product from car to clothing to video games does it these days.

Thus, I have to figure out how to set up profiles and, perhaps, use typekey, as suggested, to integrate and centralize.

I guarantee that you will not see a post from me with a crassly placed backlink...to better promote our site, and to better promote web decorum, I will go the way of the 21st century and Web 2.0.

OK, it is getting embarassing posting all this on Engadget!

I hope you do not dislike us. We are really new to this. We have a lot to learn in the way of manners and genuinely mean no harm.

TTYS. :O)

Peter

[Chris @ Mar 8th 2008 4:06PM]

At that size I'd expect it to record 1080p video to.

[dschell2 @ Mar 9th 2008 8:27AM]

Just in case you wanted to know what 36 megapixel might show:
The Large Binocular Telescope on Mount Graham, Ariz., has taken celestial images using its twin side-by-side, 8.4-meter (27.6 foot) primary mirrors together, achieving first "binocular" light.
....
Rome Observatory delivered a first panoramic (36 -megapixel) CCD camera to achieve first, single-mirror LBT light in October 2005.

From:
http://uanews.org/node/18632