Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > 21.5 meg mamiya

Reply
Thread Tools

21.5 meg mamiya

 
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> david-san ....
>
> i'm still dithering about the 20d for 13 x 19" prints ....is the
> measly 8.3 megapixels truly enough? i'm not really keen on carrying
> the 1ds2 as it is fairly heavy ...


Really. The 1Ds(2) is a far more awkward camera than my Mamiya 645 Pro. I
know the "pros" like weight, but that's overdoing it. Sigh.

I'm dithering about the 20D also. If I hadn't just bought the 300D. Sigh.

Standard rant follows:

I find that when I hand a stack of A4 (8.25 x 11.5) prints to
non-photographers, they look really closely. So I like making A4 prints that
hold up to such scrutiny. In particular, in downloading sample images, it's
clear to me that at A4, the 1Ds (325 dpi) is a lot better than 6 MP (242
dpi) for prints that will be subjected to that kind of scrutiny. (Using
Epson A4 printers.)

But 13x19 is a different game. People don't put their noses on 13x19 prints.
To my eye, dSLR images at 200 dpi don't look half bad _if you keep your eye
12" away from them_.

So for respectable 13x19, you need (13 x 200 x 19 x 200) pixels. That's 9.9
MP.

Oops.

Seriously, though, I've seen 13x19s from 6MP cameras (a mere 154 dpi) that
knocked my socks off, so I'd think the 20D (180 dpi) would do quite well,
for photographs that actually have a subject. For landscapey things with
trees and grass and leaves, though 6x7 would look a lot better.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bill Hilton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
>From: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)

>i'm still dithering about the 20d for 13 x 19" prints ....is the
>measly 8.3 megapixels truly enough?


We just printed some 8 Mpixel files from the 1D Mark II at 16x20" and they look
very good, much better than 35 mm due to lack of noise. These will hang in an
art museum for the next few weeks, for sale with their "Own Your Own Art"
program. Learn how to interpolate correctly (we resized to 360 ppi for these
art show prints) and how to use USM properly and you should get excellent large
prints, at least from the Mark II. From what I've read on the review sites the
20D has similar image quality even though the pixels are packed a bit tighter.

>i'm not really keen on carrying the 1ds2 as it is fairly heavy ...


These 44 ounce models like the 1Ds and 1D Mark II feel like a brick when you
start using them but after a few days it seems 'normal' and going back to a 28
oz camera feels odd, like they are made of foam rubber or something On a
recent Alaska trip at least five ladies staying at our lodge had the Mark II
and didn't have any problems lugging it around, usually with at least one heavy
lens ... my wife is a petite lady and she uses the Mark II with a 500 f/4 L for
example.

Lift some weights ...

Bill


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Meyers
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> david-san ....
>
> i'm still dithering about the 20d for 13 x 19" prints ....is the
> measly 8.3 megapixels truly enough? i'm not really keen on carrying
> the 1ds2 as it is fairly heavy ...


Ok, have you tried using any of the specialty interpolation programs or plug
ins during your
workflow? Maybe genuine fractals or SI Pro? The 20D will work fine unless
you are trying for nose close
high landscape detail. And maybe even then. I primarily print 12 x 18, and
they sell. I shoot 5 MP. The detail
is fine for what I shoot (auto racing primarily). I did not like the 10D,
but unless you have a need for equisite
detail (and science and landscape are all I can think of here), pick and
DSLR, currently on the market will do
13 x 19 fine. Hell, if you are worried about size, wait a little bit and
get an Olympus E-300 (8 MP), or a Pentax
*ist DS.

Just my 2 cents. Good luck on your choice.

Robert Meyers


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Napierkowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-24-2004
>13 x 19 fine. Hell, if you are worried about size, wait a little bit and
>get an Olympus E-300 (8 MP), or a Pentax
>*ist DS.


and detail.... shoot F I L M, scan it in manipulate it in PS and print it on
an Epson 2200 or 4000.

To my limited mind, the only advantage of digital is convenience to the pro
working against tight time lines.

Of coruse if you have money to burn a digital back on your Hassy or Linhof
Master 4 x5 also works

But that's just a personal opinion

Be well all

David N
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J. Littleboy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004

"David Napierkowski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >13 x 19 fine. Hell, if you are worried about size, wait a little bit and
> >get an Olympus E-300 (8 MP), or a Pentax
> >*ist DS.


This poster seems to have missed the point that the 20D, that the original
poster is considering, is an 8MP camera.

> and detail.... shoot F I L M, scan it in manipulate it in PS and print it

on
> an Epson 2200 or 4000.


You won't get any more detail from 4000 dpi scanned _35mm_ film than you do
from an 8MP dSLR such as the 20D or E-300. You'll need medium format to do
that. (5400 dpi scans might edge out the 20D, but I doubt it.)

> To my limited mind, the only advantage of digital is convenience to the

pro
> working against tight time lines.


And to the amateur who has better things to do with his time that futz with
scanning.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan



 
Reply With Quote
 
David Napierkowski
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
>And to the amateur who has better things to do with his time that futz with
>scanning. ety c etc etc>>>


Thus my statement regarding *convenience.* as distinct from actual
capabilities.

be well.

David N.


 
Reply With Quote
 
pshaw@emmet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
thanks david-san,

i was afraid you'd say what you said ... i usually scan my 35 mm
negs or slides in with a nikon 5000 and yes i'm aware of the noise
which is clearly visible in plain skies, but with some help from
photoshop, even with cropping i can use the epson 2200 to print 288
dpi at 13 x 19 and my photog patients as well as non photogs seem
impressed, at least with the quality of the print if not the photo
itself ...

so its hand carrying the film for the next few trips it seems ...

i did think of the mamiya with the 22 meg digital back but it seemed
also a bit heavy and a tad expensive ...

domo arigatou gozaimashita

steve

On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 16:17:40 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> david-san ....
>>
>> i'm still dithering about the 20d for 13 x 19" prints ....is the
>> measly 8.3 megapixels truly enough? i'm not really keen on carrying
>> the 1ds2 as it is fairly heavy ...

>
>Really. The 1Ds(2) is a far more awkward camera than my Mamiya 645 Pro. I
>know the "pros" like weight, but that's overdoing it. Sigh.
>
>I'm dithering about the 20D also. If I hadn't just bought the 300D. Sigh.
>
>Standard rant follows:
>
>I find that when I hand a stack of A4 (8.25 x 11.5) prints to
>non-photographers, they look really closely. So I like making A4 prints that
>hold up to such scrutiny. In particular, in downloading sample images, it's
>clear to me that at A4, the 1Ds (325 dpi) is a lot better than 6 MP (242
>dpi) for prints that will be subjected to that kind of scrutiny. (Using
>Epson A4 printers.)
>
>But 13x19 is a different game. People don't put their noses on 13x19 prints.
>To my eye, dSLR images at 200 dpi don't look half bad _if you keep your eye
>12" away from them_.
>
>So for respectable 13x19, you need (13 x 200 x 19 x 200) pixels. That's 9.9
>MP.
>
>Oops.
>
>Seriously, though, I've seen 13x19s from 6MP cameras (a mere 154 dpi) that
>knocked my socks off, so I'd think the 20D (180 dpi) would do quite well,
>for photographs that actually have a subject. For landscapey things with
>trees and grass and leaves, though 6x7 would look a lot better.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
pshaw@emmet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
thanks bill ... but i'm more of a mental weight lifter ...

did you use just bicubic in photoshop or something fancier like
fractals to up-size?

steve

On 24 Oct 2004 15:16:49 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)dy (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

>>From: (E-Mail Removed)

>
>>i'm still dithering about the 20d for 13 x 19" prints ....is the
>>measly 8.3 megapixels truly enough?

>
>We just printed some 8 Mpixel files from the 1D Mark II at 16x20" and they look
>very good, much better than 35 mm due to lack of noise. These will hang in an
>art museum for the next few weeks, for sale with their "Own Your Own Art"
>program. Learn how to interpolate correctly (we resized to 360 ppi for these
>art show prints) and how to use USM properly and you should get excellent large
>prints, at least from the Mark II. From what I've read on the review sites the
>20D has similar image quality even though the pixels are packed a bit tighter.
>
>>i'm not really keen on carrying the 1ds2 as it is fairly heavy ...

>
>These 44 ounce models like the 1Ds and 1D Mark II feel like a brick when you
>start using them but after a few days it seems 'normal' and going back to a 28
>oz camera feels odd, like they are made of foam rubber or something On a
>recent Alaska trip at least five ladies staying at our lodge had the Mark II
>and didn't have any problems lugging it around, usually with at least one heavy
>lens ... my wife is a petite lady and she uses the Mark II with a 500 f/4 L for
>example.
>
>Lift some weights ...
>
>Bill
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
pshaw@emmet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
hi david ...

that's what i've been doing (film scan 'shop) ...but carrying the film
through the various airport lines gets a bit old ... and sometimes in
3rd world countries, when they see 75 rolls or so they ask
suspiciously if i'm a professional photographer ... with an easy
heart i answer that i'm just an amateur ...

steve

On 24 Oct 2004 23:06:35 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (David Napierkowski)
wrote:

>>13 x 19 fine. Hell, if you are worried about size, wait a little bit and
>>get an Olympus E-300 (8 MP), or a Pentax
>>*ist DS.

>
>and detail.... shoot F I L M, scan it in manipulate it in PS and print it on
>an Epson 2200 or 4000.
>
>To my limited mind, the only advantage of digital is convenience to the pro
>working against tight time lines.
>
>Of coruse if you have money to burn a digital back on your Hassy or Linhof
>Master 4 x5 also works
>
>But that's just a personal opinion
>
>Be well all
>
>David N


 
Reply With Quote
 
pshaw@emmet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
it is my limited understanding that there is a difference in 'digital'
and 'analog' noise, with the noise of fim being a bit more random,
reflecting the relatively random size of the sensitized film elements
.... and that the eye 'may' be more forgiving of analog noise ....

but i could be wrong ...

steve

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:58:01 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"David Napierkowski" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >13 x 19 fine. Hell, if you are worried about size, wait a little bit and
>> >get an Olympus E-300 (8 MP), or a Pentax
>> >*ist DS.

>
>This poster seems to have missed the point that the 20D, that the original
>poster is considering, is an 8MP camera.
>
>> and detail.... shoot F I L M, scan it in manipulate it in PS and print it

>on
>> an Epson 2200 or 4000.

>
>You won't get any more detail from 4000 dpi scanned _35mm_ film than you do
>from an 8MP dSLR such as the 20D or E-300. You'll need medium format to do
>that. (5400 dpi scans might edge out the 20D, but I doubt it.)
>
>> To my limited mind, the only advantage of digital is convenience to the

>pro
>> working against tight time lines.

>
>And to the amateur who has better things to do with his time that futz with
>scanning.
>
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
>
>


 
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
"Mamiya Tempts Photographers With Sample High Res ZD Photos" Bill Hilton Digital Photography 9 12-21-2005 06:54 AM
Mamiya Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro Siddhartha Jain Digital Photography 4 10-14-2005 10:37 PM
Mamiya ZD Michael McNulty Digital Photography 1 11-14-2004 07:23 PM
Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices Alan Browne Digital Photography 46 10-07-2004 10:10 PM
Mamiya ZD 22 Megapixels cameral announced Linda_N Digital Photography 16 10-07-2004 09:09 PM



Advertisments