The new ultimate toy

Unfortunate that this is 44x33mm, instead of a full 56x41mm (or even the slight-crop 54x41mm). It would have been nice to mount this on a technical camera. But, at 44x33mm, there aren't any real UWA options available without stitching - and, if I'm going to have to stitch, I may as well use the A7r. Also, a sensor 44mm wide isn't too much bigger than 36mm to justify the fifteen-fold price premium.

DC Fan wrote in post #16632597
The IQ250 back will cost US $35,000, and since no DSLR lens can cover a medium format imaging areas, this upgrade will require additional expense to replace lenses.

However, now that a camera system has arrived that solves every shortcoming of Canon DSLR's, there should be an immediate and permanent rush away from the inferior Canon system.

Who's going to be the first one to switch to a superior camera?

I've ordered two (2) for immediate delivery

my pictures are worth that $35,000 price

Before I spend that kind of money, I need to know if it will take LensBaby lenses.

Shadowblade wrote in post #16633764
Unfortunate that this is 44x33mm, instead of a full 56x41mm (or even the slight-crop 54x41mm). It would have been nice to mount this on a technical camera. But, at 44x33mm, there aren't any real UWA options available without stitching - and, if I'm going to have to stitch, I may as well use the A7r. Also, a sensor 44mm wide isn't too much bigger than 36mm to justify the fifteen-fold price premium.

I don't think tech-cam shooters were in mind when this was drawn up. Technicals tend to be used for landscapes, on tripods, where ISO is not really a concern.

Wow. Some seriously under-whelming 'test' shots in that article. Maybe on location is not where this camera is any good (or with natural light, or getting focus on moving objects, or high-ish ISO...).

At least it's only 35K for some of what you need to take some photos =\

malakite wrote in post #16634731
Wow. Some seriously under-whelming 'test' shots in that article. Maybe on location is not where this camera is any good (or with natural light, or getting focus on moving objects, or high-ish ISO...).

At least it's only 35K for some of what you need to take some photos =\

Larger and better sensors have nothing to do with taking photos.

On the other hand, they have everything to do with printing them 2.5m wide on ultra-sharp, high-detail media while still standing up to close scrutiny.

I just got a deal. For an even $ 100k I've got three of them.

Something is weird....its a $35,000 camera and the pics are kind of crappy? What gives?

I'd rather buy $35k worth of Ektar and 400h to be honest.

Seems to be front-focusing a little. Noise for ISO 6400 is good, but not a blow-away.

If I were rich I'd just have to have one but it's not a take-away "best digital in the world"; even thought it may be the most expensive.

Colors seem a little flat too, but that could be the photographer's preference or maybe my monitor.

Meh. It's still only 645. I'm waiting for the 6x7 back to slap on my old RB67. Then we're talking.

So exactly what does this camera do that a 1Dx or a D800 cant... please enlighten me

The Pentax 645D provides 40mp, is superior in IQ to anything Canon makes, only cost about $7,000, uses standard P-645 lenses and has been available for almost 4 years. Is there any news here?

The 645D doesn't do higher ISO, which is the news here.

umphotography wrote in post #16635287
So exactly what does this camera do that a 1Dx or a D800 cant... please enlighten me

It's for people who can't bring themselves to print smaller than a meter on any side, while still having enough detail to justify whipping out a loupe.

I'm sure there's a lot of people willing to step out and say "Hey, I've made plenty of wall-sized prints on my [Insert camera], and it looks good enough!", but the key word here is "good enough", for some people maybe it's not.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16635335
The Pentax 645D provides 40mp, is superior in IQ to anything Canon makes, only cost about $7,000, uses standard P-645 lenses and has been available for almost 4 years. Is there any news here?

The Pentax 645D doesn't have realtime live view (as all current MF cameras), no ISO past 1600, is rather slow, no very long exposure shooting, you can't use it on tech cameras, etc.

There is a lot of news. Before, medium format was stuck with limitations you might have expected from a camera released over a decade ago, now it's up to where the 5D2 was when live view first came to DSLRs. You had to consider if 50/60/80 megapixels on a huge-аss sensor were a worthy trade off for giving up just about everything else, now it's a little less so, assuming CMOS sensors can get to the same level of image quality, while adding more flexibility.