We've relaunched as a full community! Get the scoop:

April 16, 2014

Want That 70MM Look? Pentax Jumps Into Medium Format Video with the 645Z

Ricoh, who now operates the Pentax brand, has just introduced the first sub-$10,000 medium format camera capable of shooting HD video, the 645Z. While it's not going to be your everyday shooter for video, it's certainly going to provide a very different aesthetic from even the large sensor 5D Mark II or Mark III. This is the first time it will be relatively affordable to acquire footage that more closely matches the angle of view of 65mm film.

Here are the specs:

  • 51.4MP CMOS Sensor - 43.8 x 32.8 mm
  • Prime III Image Processor
  • Anti-Alias Filter-Less Design
  • 3.2" 1037K Dot Tiltable Air-Gapless LCD
  • 1920 x 1080 -- 60i/30p/24p Video Capture (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 (MOV))
  • 1280 x 720 -- 60p/50p/30p/25p/24p
  • ISO Sensitivity Range of 100 - 204,800
  • Dual Slot SD/SDHC/SDXC
  • SAFOX II TTL 27 Point Autofocus System
  • 3 fps Continuous Shooting
  • Weather Sealed Magnesium Alloy Body
  • Pentax Flucard and Eye-Fi Compatible
  • PENTAX 645AF2, 645AF and 645A mount lenses PENTAX 67 medium format lenses useable with adapter
  • Availability: June
  • Price: $8,500 Body Only

Pentax 645Z 8

Here is a sample image (many more posted over at Sony Alpha Rumors):

No, for the most part, this is not going to be your everyday camera, and most of you probably won't be buying one, but it's pretty fantastic that we are now getting Medium Format cameras for prices this low. The Sony CMOS sensor being used in this camera also gives far better low-light performance than previous Medium Format cameras that used CCD sensors, so these cameras will be far more usable in more circumstances.

The last big thing related to this announcement, is that this camera (and possibly all the other cameras that will use this Sony sensor), will shoot 1080 video. It's likely that this is a sampling of the entire sensor to get down to this resolution, so while I wouldn't expect the video quality to rival cameras made just for video, you're going to get an extremely unique look with the video from this camera. It's not going to be like shooting IMAX (since that's a much bigger image area), but it will have a field of view similar to Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, which was shot on 65mm and projected in 70mm:

Color and image quality is an entirely different subject, but I'm sure people are going to find interesting uses for specific projects if the quality is at least passable. I have shot quite a bit of Medium Format, and the thing that stands out to me are normal focal length shots at low f-stops. You can isolate the background in a really interesting way, with the subject almost jumping out at you.

Links:

[via PetaPixel]

Your Comment

57 Comments

It was only a matter of time, and I'm glad that this day has come!

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Brian

I'm 100% in.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply

Still not nearly as big as IMAX.

70.41mm x 52.63mm

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
David Acampora

I dont understand. It records in 1080p, same as canon 5d, but iT has a langer sensor. So even smaller dof. What exacly do we win here?

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Nj

A (for the moment) unique visual style.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Bertzie

If I'm not mistaken, the fastest lenses available for the 645Z are f/2.8, compared to the f/1.2 and f/1.4 lenses available for full frame, so the Pentax camera would have deeper depth of field (even with the bigger sensor) than full frame. idk how it compares to Super 35.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Benjamin

F-stop isn't the only factor in determining depth-of-filed. Another very important factor is focal length.

Here is a ultra large format DOF adapter that shoots with a normal lens of 500mm at f5.6 or smaller apertures: http://vimeo.com/84769322

The depth-of-field from the 500mm at f5.6 is likely shallower than that of a 50mm lens (on a 35mm camera) at f2.8.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
jschmoe

Depth of field is not changed by focal length, it appears that way as the image has been magnified.

April 17, 2014

0
Reply

You just proved my point -- Focal length = "magnification." The longer the focal length the shallower the depth-of-field "appears."

However, that "apearance" is actual depth of field. One can shoot with a 20mm lens wide open and throw the foreground and/or background out of focus. That depth-of-field can be measured, and it visibly increases as one stops down to f5.6, but, compared to f5.6 on a 500mm lens, the 20mm will have noticably greater depth-of-field.

April 17, 2014

-1
Reply
jschmoe

Ehm... Focal length does not have an influence on Depth of Field? Guys, that is just wrong. Simply take a picture with, say 50mm and another one with 100mm. If you crop the 50mm-pic to the exact framing of the 100mm-Pic, you'll see the DoF actually HAS changed. I made a quick demonstration on that: http://youtu.be/fmuKQkhr9ac (Light situation changed a little bit due to daylight as a source.)

April 18, 2014

0
Reply
Anteeru

The depth of field is exactly the same from any normal or zoom lens at the same field of view. Period.

Regards,
Rachael

April 25, 2014

0
Reply

From video perspective there is really no advantage seeing how pixels do not equate to a sharper or higher resolution on the big screen i.e ( nikon d800).

However on the stills side, this is an amazing camera, the previous digital model was a poor mans version of hassleblad's digital backs.

I definitely love to rent one for huge priting projects or billboard work, there is nothing like that medium format look that you get on the stills side.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
JAYE

More pixels allow you to oversample your image a la F-65 or C 100/300 for a better color rendering or a full stated resolution image. (a typical 1080p sensor image is anywhere from the mid-700's to mid-800's after debayering, so with 50 MP's, you can downsample from 8K 33 MP to 4K 8.8MP, provided enough computational power) You can also insert more auto focus points as in A6000, etc. It doesn't look like this model will be doing it but it can be done.

April 18, 2014

-1
Reply
DLD

Larger sensors allow larger photosites (pixels), which can lower noise (increase dynamic range/signal-to-noise ration).

However, this sensor appears to have typically sized photosites but just more of them. So, if the many pixels are properly binned down to 1920x1080, there could be a little less noise than that of a 35mm full frame camera.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
jschmoe

HD mode near useless. 1920 x 1080 — 60i/30p/24p Video Capture (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 (MOV))

What is the bitrate going to be 24mb/s? This will be a great stills camera, but for video, forget it.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
neil

If it is 24mbps as you say, that's not all that different from a whole lot of sub-$5k cameras on the market. So what's the big deal? This is not supposed to be a cinema camera, it's the first of what will hopefully be a long line of successors and improvements - just as we saw with DSLRs.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Brian

External recorder??? Higher bitrate duh

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
MOOD

Using an external recorder assumes the HDMI out is live while in Preview & Record mode. In a number of recent Pentax cameras it has been live ONLY in Playback mode, so an external recorder may not be on the option list. Needless to say, this would also kill using an external monitor.

Something to verify first.

April 19, 2014

0
Reply
William Koehler

It looks like Pentax is crippling this camera on Sony's demand. The body is certainly large enough and the price is high enough to offer, at least, a 2.5K internal recording and a 4K HDMI out (Sony's own A7 series body is a relative pipsqueak, by comparison). With this sensor, they could have offered anything from a center crop 2.5K/4K to a line skipper and/or pixel binner and/or oversampler a la Canon Cinema series. Plus, a 2.4 or even 1.66 formats. Maybe, Sony's own dMF camera will have it when it comes out later on.
.
PS. Sony A7 weighs 416 gram or less than one pound. Pentax 645D (looks like the same body) weighed in at 1,400 gram.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
DLD

Things needn't be so conspiratorial. Ricoh/Pentax is a small company. They have limited video experience and limited R&D resources. Video was never a big part of the market for this camera. The feature is an afterthought, likely added because the CMOS sensor supported it and they could implement their DSLR video code with minimal effort. If this sensor supports the various exotic means of video processing you mention, Pentax was never the company to implement it.

But at least they offer it. Phase One and Hasselblad both offer much pricier cameras with this sensor, and they couldn't be bothered. Nor should they. They do well enough supporting their customers with the features they need, and video isn't one of them.

Sony may well put this sensor in their own body and deliver a really great implementation of video. Of course, if Sony needs anything, it's a third lens mount to support with far too few lenses. I hope they're not that stupid, much as I like the idea of medium format video.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Will

Not conspiratorial. Product crippling is par for the course in the photo-video industry. All Sony had to do was to offer Pentax a slightly greater discount on the sensor with the stipulation to keep 4K in a time-lapse rather than a continuous mode. In order to do it 24/25p, it may have needed to add more memory and an additional processor (probably on the former, questionable on the latter). The 4K enabled Canon 1D C has twin processors in a similar weight (1.5kg) and that's a two year old product and even older processors. New processors should have enough processing power as it is without the need to be doubled, as you can see with GH4. And this is a far more expensive camera to boot.
.
As to codec -
a) they could have subcontracted the process to almost any company. If a small fry like KineFinity can bring a 6K cam to the market, so can Ricoh;
b) they could have simply hired a few more software engineers, if they needed to, something that could have helped them across their entire line of Pentax cameras since those other cameras (K5, K3, K500, K50, etc.) also happen to record video at various bit rates;
c) they could have just licensed an established codec like ProRes. Sony, who also has own codecs like XAVC, did just that with their recent upgrade on the F5/F55 lines..
.
And those are just some of the reasons and explanations.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
DLD

Very promising. Can't wait to try it.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Max

I agree.

May 8, 2014

0
Reply
Jerry

The extremely shallow depth of field and potential for great exposure latitude are what's interesting about this. All the other qualities are yet to be determined; until we actually see unprocessed footage from the 645Z, it's probably best to reserve judgement.
Remember when Leica first added video to one of their digital cameras not too long ago? It ended up not being of the greatest quality. With this camera, and with its chosen form of compression, there's a lot up in the air. It could sample from the whole image sensor, use well-developed compression, and then provide amazing-looking video at decent bit-rates, or it could line-skip all over the place, have funky compression and look like shallow-DOF 550D footage. Who knows?
It's still interesting, though.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Mr Blah

I'm leaning towards it looking like shit. It's great that stills cameras can shoot video, I've owned quite a few. Was really happy with my GH2 and GH3. But after using a "serious" video camera, I can never go back to vDSLR land for video. It isn't worth the rigging headache or the post production nightmare of working in a 4:2:0 color space. The quality just isn't there.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Jorge Cayon

....because you were using GH cameras?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
I've actually started using my 5D3 MORE lately; there are definitely times when dragging an F55 (etc) around is a pain, and a C300 won't cut it for me picture wise.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
marklondon

People mad about the video on this thing is funny to me, this is a photo camera I dont understand why they added video really and Im huge fan of DSLR.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply

This is fantastic news!!! Interval recording for time-lapse videos is supported with an output of UHD 4K resolution. RAW files can be recorded at 14-bit and saved using either the proprietary PEF format or Adobe's DNG format for greater post-production control and flexibility.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply

Please, STOP mixing up photography and film calculations!

ASP-C is actually the closest to a s35 film field of view (cropfactor of x1,1). The 5D already has the 70mm film stock look, which is, in fact, shot through a sensor that is about 35mm – watch any Shane Hurlbut video and he'll tell you that "this baby has a VistaVision sized sensor in it".(like here, around 2:40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYaXPn9Jg0g) (which is s35 x0,7)

So, the Pentax camera described here is more like a 6x6 camera (Hasselblad/Rolleiflex etc.. which, indeed, is 'medium format photography') with video option. Which is probably cool and might be a look of its own.

MFT may have 2x cropfactor in regards to 35mm PHOTOGRAPHY, but it is only x1,4 to s35 FILM FOV. Please NoFilmSchool, drop an article on this to end the nonsense.. please check out http://www.abelcine.com/fov/ and get your calculations sorted out once and for all.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
tc

You are completely forgotting anamorphic s35 which a vast majority of good looking films were shot on. It actually has more surface area than a fullframe 5d so a 7d without anamorphic won't match the dof anyways. Fullframe does look way more proper for the anamorphic s35 look without actually going anamorphic.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Mikko Löppönen

Your opinions are hilarious sir.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Loo

Cinemascope / Panavision etc use a film frame slightly smaller than the super 35mm frame (which is super because exposes on the soundtrack area). So a 7D has a similar but slightly larger sensor than a Cinemascope film camera.
Super 35mm is used for Cinemascope sized films like Titanic, without the anamorphic lens and distortion. eg the7D sized sensor.

April 18, 2014

0
Reply
Cameron Glendinning

VistaVision isn't 70mm, it's 35mm run horizontally through the camera. Medium format is equivalent to 65mm...and IMAX is 65mm run horizontally.

April 16, 2014

1
Reply
Gabe

Yes the 5D does have the vista vision sized sensor which is also the same size as 70mm (5 perf /70mm) which the classics like 2001, Baraka and Laurence of Arabia was filmed. This is no where as big as IMAX (15/70mm). I guess it might be close to 8/70mm which was used in some smaller giant screen cinemas and in IMAX productions where a smaller camera was needed.
This articles head line is certainly not correct and is misleading.

April 18, 2014

0
Reply
Cameron Glendinning

The fastest lenses for this system are f2.8. A full frame 35mm camera like a 5D with a f1.4 lens will have shallower depth of field than this camera so I don't expect anything special for the look.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Sander

A missed opportunity to make it mirrorless and therefore as compact as a DSLR.
With all the benefits of a Mirrorless.

April 16, 2014

1
Reply
Tulio

Then it would be a toy and not a professional stills camera.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Jorge Cayon

I may have misunderstood you, you're saying mirrorless cameras are toys and not for professionals?

April 16, 2014

-1
Reply
Gene

Yes. Exactly what I said. When a production of over 40-50 people are hired for a gig and the DP shows up with a small Mirrorless Camera, what will the producers think? Where does the Audio Guy sync sound or send audio to? Is all that grip gear for bigger cameras really worth it? Producers are now asking why did they spend all this money for a little camera. Don't get me wrong, I was one the first folks in my neck of the woods with a GH2, then hacked, and then a GH3.Then when I started to get hired for serious work, on serious budgets, there was no way that a small mirror less camera would be acceptable to producers. Believe me I tried to sell it. They just couldn't sell the camera to McDonalds, Gatorade or any other client. I made great little movies, while in college and a year or two after graduation, for small time clients, but in the world of paying mortgages and every other expense life entails, those cameras do not belong in the professional world. The rigging and workflow headaches are not warranted on $100k/day shoots.

As your experience and skills move up so should your gear. You will never get a high paying, serious production gig with a small vDSLR, mirror less or not. Those years are long gone as better, more well suited S35mm censored Video Cameras have arrived. Now granted, this is the world "I" want to work in. And I get it that there is a market, and users for these cams. They are very capable in the right hands. But they will never be taken seriously on big budget shoots, not anymore. And please don't link me to Shane Hurlbut or any other indie film shot on DSLR. I've seen them.

This is my working opinion for mirror less cameras in the video world. I'd be more than happy to link to serious, professional Photographers who will also not shoot with mirror less for various technical reasons, all warranted. And I'm not talking about a wedding or event photographer. Actual Fashion and Automotive dudes who I have worked with from time to time.

April 17, 2014

0
Reply
Jorge Cayon

About the only thing I use the 5D gets used for is personal still photography or time lapse. I love it when I tell a bro with a 5D or even GH2 that the camera package I often use on set rents for $4,000 a day. Their response is always " Thats a 5D with a kit lens!", My response is always "Bitch please."

April 17, 2014

0
Reply
Loo

Hmmm it appears like your website ate my first comment (it was uper long) so I guess I'll just sum it up what I wrote and say, I'm thoroughly enjoying your blog.
I too am an aspiring blog blogger but I'm still new to the whole thing.
Do you have any suggestions for beginner blog writers?
I'd really appreciate it.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply

Where is it possible to see the video sample??? I googled and no one there....

April 16, 2014

0
Reply

And where is 4K?? :)

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
kuk

Happy line skipping on 50MPix sensor?

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
kuk

Bitrate?

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
kuk

DR?

April 16, 2014

1
Reply
kuk

I love reading comments from 5D fan boys who covet the super shallow DOF look. Let me give you a clue, nobody actually takes your work seriously when the majority of your shots are out of focus. Yes this can be done effectively, to obtain a look, but chances are you're on a still lens because hey its cheap! and didn't budget for a focus puller to keep it all sharp at that such shallow DOF. I suppose this is what separates the men from the boys. Yes, it is nice to shoot on a larger sensor, but please for the love of God make it look good at least.

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
Loo

It shoots crappy line-skipped 8bit DSLR-style video, but the sensor makes up for it.

Put some zeiss jenas on this, convert your footage to 444 in post, and you can totally make something nice

April 16, 2014

0
Reply
john jeffries

Um.... You do realize that "converting" your chroma sampling to 4444 won't do jack shit right? You can't make shitty 8bit 422 magically better with a button in post.

April 17, 2014

-1
Reply
Loo

That is true but at least you dont get choppy playback in the timeline like h.264 does

April 18, 2014

1
Reply
john jeffries

Pages