Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices

 
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
Stacey wrote:

> Like DUH, I meant the APS size digtial rebel ones people keep bragging
> about.


Time you though more about the 1Ds Mk II (full frame, 18 Mpix).


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>~Darrell Larose~ wrote:


>> "Alan Browne" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:JBD6d.70$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>deryck lant wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The new 22 Meg Mamiya ZD 645 format DSLR with 36x48mm imager is rumoured
>>>>to sell
>>>>at around 10K US Dollars:
>>>>
>>>>

>>
>> http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/ev...iya/ZD_en.html
>>
>>>>If so it will dampen down the price of the new 1DsMkII Canon and maybe
>>>>influence
>>>>Nikon as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>Not sure about the effect on prices for "35mm" format DSLR's, if any.
>>>

>>
>> Sensor prices rely on the economy of scale, if the Mamiya sensor sells in
>> volume, whether in a Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad, the end result is the
>> prices will come down. If this sensor was split in half we would then have
>> to 24x36mm sensors. This is a simplistic view, but silicon sort of works
>> like that...


>The notion is that if a high end camera such as the 645 is at a certain price
>point, then it will have downward pressure on the price point in a different
>class of camera. Since they are different classes of camera and different lens
>systems, etc., there will be 0 effect. Further the pix density of the MF camera
>is less than that of the 'best' 35mm digital ... so really no comparison at all
>at the chip level.


>Cheers,
>Alan


I'm not so sure about the effect of pix density. Doesn't it
depend on what you want to do with the image.

Let us say that one wants to print an 8x10. Then a 4x5
image only has to be enlarged by a linear factor of two.
The resulting pix density (assuming one could print it)
would be the original divided by 4.

On the other hand the long dimension of a 35mm shot is
about 1.25 inches. If that is to be enlarged to 10 inches
that's a linear expansion of 8 times. The resulting final
pix density will be the original divided by 64.

Clearly the 4x5 image will end up giving the 8x10 the greater
pix density -- even with a somewhat less pixel density in
the sensor.

For other uses the calculation might well be quite different.

I do not know the actual sensor dimensions a 4x5 camera might
have. So my "calculations" above are only suggestive. But
the point remains, it is the final use to which the image will
be put that counts.

---- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Hix
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Chris Brown <(E-Mail Removed)_uce_please.com> wrote:

> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Bill Hilton <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >Unfortunately Mamiya USA has a stranglehold on the US import market and for
> >many products you pay a LOT more in the US than you do in Europe for the same
> >item. Often this extra markup is 50%, 80%, even 100% ... one lens for my
> >Mamiya 7 system sold for $2,500 at B&H but was available for $1,500 at Robert
> >White in England, for example, or a markup of an additional 66%.

>
> It's nice to have it the other way around just this once - we in Europe, and
> especially the UK, usually get outrageously fleeced compared to US prices.
> Allow us our indulgence on this one - it doesn't happen often. ;->


Priced Rollei medium format here? I'd love to use some of the photo gear
here that seems to be fairly popular in europe...won't happen.

Doesn't help that the distributors of some pro gear, particularly medium
format, here apparently couldn't sell ice cubes to bedouins in Yemen in
August.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sander Vesik
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm ~Darrell Larose~ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >

> Sensor prices rely on the economy of scale, if the Mamiya sensor sells in
> volume, whether in a Mamiya, Bronica, Hasselblad, the end result is the
> prices will come down. If this sensor was split in half we would then have
> to 24x36mm sensors. This is a simplistic view, but silicon sort of works
> like that...
>


By and far, sensor price depends on sensor size and not demand. At least
until you get the volume well into 100s of thousands.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
Paul J Gans wrote:


>>The notion is that if a high end camera such as the 645 is at a certain price
>>point, then it will have downward pressure on the price point in a different
>>class of camera. Since they are different classes of camera and different lens
>>systems, etc., there will be 0 effect. Further the pix density of the MF camera
>>is less than that of the 'best' 35mm digital ... so really no comparison at all
>>at the chip level.

>
>
>>Cheers,
>>Alan

>
>
> I'm not so sure about the effect of pix density. Doesn't it
> depend on what you want to do with the image.
>
> Let us say that one wants to print an 8x10. Then a 4x5
> image only has to be enlarged by a linear factor of two.
> The resulting pix density (assuming one could print it)
> would be the original divided by 4.
>
> On the other hand the long dimension of a 35mm shot is
> about 1.25 inches. If that is to be enlarged to 10 inches
> that's a linear expansion of 8 times. The resulting final
> pix density will be the original divided by 64.
>
> Clearly the 4x5 image will end up giving the 8x10 the greater
> pix density -- even with a somewhat less pixel density in
> the sensor.
>
> For other uses the calculation might well be quite different.
>
> I do not know the actual sensor dimensions a 4x5 camera might
> have. So my "calculations" above are only suggestive. But
> the point remains, it is the final use to which the image will
> be put that counts.


You're right, but that isn't what I was getting at.

The pix density always matters. But it is independant of the number of pixels,
a point that people tend to overlook (esp. the zlr sellers and buyers).

The fact that the Mamiya density is lower is a benefit, not a hinderance. The
noise level is lower (and the overall number of pix is greater in this case, so
win-win for the Mamiya (and the H1, etc.) v. the highest pix 35mm 'size' camera.

The overall point is really that for best quality images, the Mamiya 645 should
handilly beat the new 1Ds Mk II. But that level of quality is not always
needed. For a pro of course, if he needs the high end, from there he can always
produce work with a less demanding spec.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brad Templeton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
DLGlos <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>If MAC (Mamiya America Corp) does this their new digital, they may
>never regain any market share. In general, I think the digital
>revolution has lowered the level of imaging quality that the general
>public is willing to accept. Before you jump all over me, I'm not
>saying digital in inheritly worse quality, but in many cases, its
>certainly no better. High end DSLR's, with APS to 35mm sized sensors,
>are pretty much normal in wedding photography today, and it might be a
>tough sell to move up to medium format based DSLR, despite an
>improvement in image quality.


I suspect that part of what people are expecting from a wedding
photographer -- aside from being highly skilled at the art -- is
something beyond what they see people doing with "prosumer" equipment.
In particular when they are going to pay the price per print that
is typically charged. We've all seen glorious giant wedding
photos taken on medium and even large format cameras, but how often
are these mounted on the wall? The size of photo I see on most walls
and in most wedding albums can indeed be made to look very good with
a 35mm camera, either film or digital.

When it was all film, going to medium format showed an obvious jump
over any 35mm equipment. Because no matter how nice your 35mm equipment
was, it was largely all in the lens, and a little bit in the film, and
if one of your wedding guests bought high end Canon L or Nikkor lenses
they probably had equpiment able to take as good a shot (in the right
hands.)

Today with digital you can have a high end digital, but the photographer
can probably show their technical (as opposed to compositional) value
with fancy digital services, web albums, live slideshow at the
reception, etc.
--
Let's return privacy to E-mail
http://www.templetons.com/brad/crypt.html
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bryan Olson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-30-2004
Alan Browne wrote:
[...]
> The pix density always matters. But it is independant of the number of pixels,
> a point that people tend to overlook (esp. the zlr sellers and buyers).
>
> The fact that the Mamiya density is lower is a benefit, not a hinderance. The
> noise level is lower (and the overall number of pix is greater in this case, so
> win-win for the Mamiya (and the H1, etc.) v. the highest pix 35mm 'size' camera.
>
> The overall point is really that for best quality images, the Mamiya 645 should
> handilly beat the new 1Ds Mk II. But that level of quality is not always
> needed. For a pro of course, if he needs the high end, from there he can always
> produce work with a less demanding spec.


Low noise is good; low pixel density is a possible means to that
end, but let's not jump to conclusions here. The ill-fated
Contax N-Digital had an exceptionally low pixel density, but
exceptionally high image noise. It used a full-frame, 6MP CCD
from Philips. Philips later sold its CCD business to DALSA, and
that's where Mamiya is getting the sensors. On the other hand,
DALSA also made the CCD's for the recent Mars rovers and those
were a smashing success.


--
--Bryan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Browne
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2004
Bryan Olson wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
> [...]
>>The overall point is really that for best quality images, the Mamiya 645 should
>>handilly beat the new 1Ds Mk II. But that level of quality is not always
>>needed. For a pro of course, if he needs the high end, from there he can always
>>produce work with a less demanding spec.

>
>
> Low noise is good; low pixel density is a possible means to that
> end, but let's not jump to conclusions here. The ill-fated
> Contax N-Digital had an exceptionally low pixel density, but
> exceptionally high image noise. It used a full-frame, 6MP CCD
> from Philips. Philips later sold its CCD business to DALSA, and
> that's where Mamiya is getting the sensors. On the other hand,
> DALSA also made the CCD's for the recent Mars rovers and those
> were a smashing success.


That's why I say "should". The density is in pretty high, just not as high as
the 35mm cams, incl. the 1Ds Mk II.

645 ZD EOS 1Ds MkII 20D Contax N
pix: 2.20E+07 1.67E+07 8.20E+06 6.00E+06
surf (mm^2): 1728 864 338 864
pix/mm^2 12731 19329 24296 6944


Clearly the Contax N sensor is a different chip tech. than the new Mamiya sensor...

There is more of course to the problem that the rough numbers above. If the
pixels are tiny but spaced out then there is no s/n advantage. The pixels must
be as big as they possibly can be on the available surface to keep s/n up.

Cheers,
Alan









Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul J Gans
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2004
In rec.photo.digital Alan Browne <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Paul J Gans wrote:



>>>The notion is that if a high end camera such as the 645 is at a certain price
>>>point, then it will have downward pressure on the price point in a different
>>>class of camera. Since they are different classes of camera and different lens
>>>systems, etc., there will be 0 effect. Further the pix density of the MF camera
>>>is less than that of the 'best' 35mm digital ... so really no comparison at all
>>>at the chip level.

>>
>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Alan

>>
>>
>> I'm not so sure about the effect of pix density. Doesn't it
>> depend on what you want to do with the image.
>>
>> Let us say that one wants to print an 8x10. Then a 4x5
>> image only has to be enlarged by a linear factor of two.
>> The resulting pix density (assuming one could print it)
>> would be the original divided by 4.
>>
>> On the other hand the long dimension of a 35mm shot is
>> about 1.25 inches. If that is to be enlarged to 10 inches
>> that's a linear expansion of 8 times. The resulting final
>> pix density will be the original divided by 64.
>>
>> Clearly the 4x5 image will end up giving the 8x10 the greater
>> pix density -- even with a somewhat less pixel density in
>> the sensor.
>>
>> For other uses the calculation might well be quite different.
>>
>> I do not know the actual sensor dimensions a 4x5 camera might
>> have. So my "calculations" above are only suggestive. But
>> the point remains, it is the final use to which the image will
>> be put that counts.


>You're right, but that isn't what I was getting at.


>The pix density always matters. But it is independant of the number of pixels,
>a point that people tend to overlook (esp. the zlr sellers and buyers).


>The fact that the Mamiya density is lower is a benefit, not a hinderance. The
>noise level is lower (and the overall number of pix is greater in this case, so
>win-win for the Mamiya (and the H1, etc.) v. the highest pix 35mm 'size' camera.


>The overall point is really that for best quality images, the Mamiya 645 should
>handilly beat the new 1Ds Mk II. But that level of quality is not always
>needed. For a pro of course, if he needs the high end, from there he can always
>produce work with a less demanding spec.


I certainly agree with that!

---- Paul J. Gans
 
Reply With Quote
 
Stacey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-01-2004
Alan Browne wrote:

> Stacey wrote:


>> Maybe this will shut up some
>> of the morons posting the "Dslr's are taking over medformat" garbage that
>> get's posted almost daily now in the film newsgroups. Somehow I doubt it
>> will.

>
> Afraid not.


Good to hear you'll keep -crossposting- this stuff to the MF film newsgroup.
We're too stupid to go look in the digital newsgroup for info on digital
cameras.

Ever consider some people using film cameras have actually considered these
digital options and decided they didn't need/want one? Why should I care if
some $8000+ camera can maybe equal what my $500 mamiya I already own can
do?

--

Stacey
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: New Leaf Credo camera back series for the Mamiya 645DF to ship in June RichA Digital Photography 1 05-06-2012 10:48 AM
Digital back for a Mamiya 645 Pro TL? Sandman Digital Photography 5 05-03-2012 02:57 PM
Pentax 645, longest gestation, shortest life ever? RichA Digital Photography 0 03-20-2010 11:13 AM
New Pentax 645 and the death of the CF card RichA Digital Photography 8 03-15-2010 08:54 AM
645 MF in pixel equivalent drs@canby.com Digital Photography 15 10-03-2004 02:52 AM



Advertisments