Our friend Steve Rosenbaum creates some amazing infrared images using his iPhone. In terms of artistry, composition and impact, they are as good as many IR pictures we’ve seen. All he does is hold a filter up in front of the camera’s lens. But that simple technical fact doesn’t take into account the many years that Steve has invested in developing his style and photo know-how.

As we have said in many of our lectures, seminars and articles, it isn’t the camera (or phone) that creates a good photograph – it’s the photographer. His eye, his sense of composition and light, his essential artistry. The camera is nothing more than the device he uses to capture and create what he sees and conceives.

But an iPhone?

What’s the problem with an iPhone? many might ask. And I have to reply with technological issues, despite the fact that I have just (and often) poo-pooed the impact of technology on art.

The iPhone’s optics are extremely limited. The lens is plastic, which affects the quality and precision of light and shadow that can be captured. The image sensor (which, technically, is part of the optics system) is small. By that, I’m not referring to its low resolution, but to the physical size. It’s tinier than my pinky fingernail. That, in turn, means that it has physically smaller pixels, which, again, severely limits the quality and precision of the image that can be captured. (To understand the physics behind this fact, check out my Extreme Tech article
“Size Matters.” It’s an older, outdated article, in terms of sizes and resolutions now available, but the essential facts and laws of optics remain just as true.)

Those two limitations mean that you may be very pleased with small prints or Web renderings of a photo from your phone. But the larger you print it, the more the quality issues become apparent. This is true regardless of how high the resolution gets in next generation camera phones (and the generation after that and after that).

In other words, it’s the optics of a camera (including the image sensor) that’s at the heart of image quality and reproducibility.

This isn’t new to the digital age. In film, we had similar issues. That’s why there’s always been a hierarchy of cameras. A cardboard film-in-a-box camera will never be able to deliver the quality of a typical point-and-shoot, which just can’t do the job of a single lens reflex (SLR) with its interchangeable lenses. And, for pros, who must have the absolute top film quality, with unsurpassed optics that can resolve superb details, shadows and lights, medium format (such as a Mamiya or Pentax 645) is the way to go – unsurpassed, that is, unless you go up to a large format studio view camera (such as a Lindhof or Sinar).

Similarly, among digital cameras, the optics of point-and-shoots just don’t measure up to DSLRs, and some pros use digital medium format cameras (such as a Phase One or Hasselblad) for optimum quality. However, current and coming generations of top-of-the-line DSLRs (such as the Canon Mark III and Nikon D3X) are approaching the quality of digital medium format cameras. So, many pros who might have once used only medium format cameras are now buying and using DSLRs instead. In fact, some younger professionals have never even handled a medium format camera, and they still are getting the pictures they and their clients need and want. That’s certainly helpful in this economy, since a Hassie or Phase One system costs tens of thousands of dollars.

But with their larger lenses, image sensors and pixel sizes, medium format cameras are still the Rolls Royces of photography. The optics are superb, and so are their programming and color science. What’s more, if your client happens to be on the shoot with you, they also create an undeniable impression of professional excellence, because you demand and use only the best for their photo spread or ad campaign.

So that brings me to the title question of this blog... Should Pentax Bring the 645D to the US Market?

Last week, I had the privilege and opportunity to not only see a Pentax 645D, but to take it on a shooting walk through the streets of Manhattan. Pentax’s digital version of its film medium format camera, the 645D, doesn’t officially exist in this country. Though it was introduced in Japan earlier this year, Pentax is still deciding whether or not to bring it over here. To evaluate its market potential, the American division of Pentax bought a unit in Japan, and had it shipped to their headquarters in Colorado.

I loved shooting with the 645D. Not much heavier than a Canon Mark III, it does have a more deliberate, serious personality, as is fitting for a camera in its class. By heritage and function, there’s no doubt, it is a Pentax. It’s a bit bigger and heavier than the 645 film, but has the familiar ergonomics and handling. On the other side of the coin, the menus and features are quite similar to the K7. What excited me the most about it was the potential to be able to use Pentax’s famed medium format lenses, combined with the company’s excellent imaging science.

And then, there’s that lovely 33MP image sensor with its large pixels and deep wells, which will translate into greater dynamic range. Of course, most people don’t need that much detail and data, but those photographers who would be interested in the 645D are precisely the small subset of the market that want and need the highest quality. For instance, it’s an excellent match to the HP 44" Designjet Z3200 Photo printer I use to create large exhibition prints for my American Hands photo project and other fine art projects.

But just because photographers like me would love to use a 645D doesn’t mean that bringing it to the US market makes good business sense for Pentax.

Pentax would certainly price the 645D significantly below the cost of comparable Phase One or Hasselblad systems. However, I’m not sure that other medium format camera users represent the greatest market potential for the 645D. Given that I expect the body would be priced much closer to a Canon Mark III than a Hassie, I wouldn’t be surprised if most potential American buyers of a 645D might be those pros who usually shoot top-of-the-line DSLRs and are interested in having one medium format camera in their bag, for those times when they need that extra edge of quality, size, dynamic range or imprint of professionalism. And that could represent a nice profitable segment of the market.

Then there’s one other factor that could determine whether or not the 645D would be a winning product for Pentax USA – it’s what we call the Race Car Advantage. Many Americans who know Pentax recognize the brand from its colorful consumer products rather than as a respected name in optics and high quality cameras. Introducing the 645D into the US, if handled correctly, could become a highly visible flagship product that could provide Pentax with a much needed prestige boost. Of course, the question is: how bankable is prestige? In other words, do world-class race cars really sell consumer products?

What do you think? Should Pentax bring the 645D to the US market?

Please send us your response and comments either by sending us email (use the links to the right), posting here on Lab Notes Blog or on Facebook (on either of our FB pages: Daniel Grotta or Sally Wiener Grotta.