21.5 meg mamiya

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by pshaw@emmet.com, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. Guest

    according to the most recent "nikkei weekly" mamiya-zd single lens
    reflex camera will be released in dec. and have a 21.5 megapixel ccd
    approx price is $10,000 - no other details (ie size of chip etc)

    steve
    , Oct 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Gaderian Guest

    wrote:
    > according to the most recent "nikkei weekly" mamiya-zd single lens
    > reflex camera will be released in dec. and have a 21.5 megapixel ccd
    > approx price is $10,000 - no other details (ie size of chip etc)
    >
    > steve


    Well, if you're a scientist or blowing up pictures the size of billboards it
    may be worth it.
    So far I'm happy with 6.1
    Gaderian, Oct 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > according to the most recent "nikkei weekly" mamiya-zd single lens
    > reflex camera will be released in dec. and have a 21.5 megapixel ccd
    > approx price is $10,000 - no other details (ie size of chip etc)


    http://www.mamiya-op.co.jp/home/camera/news_contents/indexzd.html

    36x48mm chip, roughly 4000 x 5333 pixels (1Ds2: 3300 x 4950) so 16x21 prints
    will be as good as 13x19s from the 1Ds2. Note that this sleazy comparison is
    for different aspect ratio prints<g>.

    A 4GB card holds 100 RAW images. Ouch.

    The widest lens is 35mm; 35/48 = x/36 => 26mm equiv.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 23, 2004
    #3
  4. Gadgets Guest

    Gadgets, Oct 23, 2004
    #4
  5. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > according to the most recent "nikkei weekly" mamiya-zd single lens
    > reflex camera will be released in dec. and have a 21.5 megapixel ccd
    > approx price is $10,000 - no other details (ie size of chip etc)
    >

    Go to: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp

    Most info is there... 36x48mm sensor!




    ---

    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
    Darrell Larose, Oct 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Pepys Guest

    Pepys, Oct 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill Crocker Guest

    Bill Crocker, Oct 23, 2004
    #7
  8. No price on that yet? I want one! But....10G! Not saying its not great...but
    wow!


    "Bill Crocker" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > That reviews their digital "back". There is also a full self contained
    > digital camera:
    >
    > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp
    >
    > Bill Crocker
    >
    >
    > "Gadgets" <info@gadgetaus....com> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Nice review here:
    > > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p25-firstlook.shtml
    > >
    > > Cheers, Jason (remove ... to reply)
    > > Video & Gaming: http://gadgetaus.com

    >
    >
    Gene Palmiter, Oct 23, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Gene Palmiter"

    >No price on that yet? I want one! But....10G! Not saying its not great...but
    >wow!


    I don't think they've announced a price yet but I really doubt it's going to be
    $10,000 in the USA. At Photokina someone "guessed" it would sell in Europe for
    10,000 Euros (which is where the $10,000 apparently came from) but this would
    be about $12,000 US and also Mamiya USA jacks up the prices tremendously since
    they have a monopoly with no grey market imports allowed. Typically the high
    end Mamiya lenses and bodies sell for 50-80% MORE in the US than they do in say
    England at a place like Robert White (where I've bought a couple of Mamiya
    lenses at great savings).

    If this 10,000 Euros is actually right and Mam USA does their usual extortion
    job it would likely sell for $15,000 - 20,000 in the USA, which is more in line
    with what the 22 Mpixel backs are going for alone (I think the initial list
    price for the Phase One 22 Mpix back is $29,900, for example).

    At $10,000 US (very unlikely price) it would be a relative bargain for those
    with Mamiya lenses. You'll pay $8,000 for a 16 Mpixel Canon 1Ds Mark II, for
    example.
    Bill Hilton, Oct 23, 2004
    #9
  10. Guest

    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 ...

    yoroshiku ....

    steve

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 14:42:57 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> according to the most recent "nikkei weekly" mamiya-zd single lens
    >> reflex camera will be released in dec. and have a 21.5 megapixel ccd
    >> approx price is $10,000 - no other details (ie size of chip etc)

    >
    >http://www.mamiya-op.co.jp/home/camera/news_contents/indexzd.html
    >
    >36x48mm chip, roughly 4000 x 5333 pixels (1Ds2: 3300 x 4950) so 16x21 prints
    >will be as good as 13x19s from the 1Ds2. Note that this sleazy comparison is
    >for different aspect ratio prints<g>.
    >
    >A 4GB card holds 100 RAW images. Ouch.
    >
    >The widest lens is 35mm; 35/48 = x/36 => 26mm equiv.
    >
    >David J. Littleboy
    >Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >
    , Oct 24, 2004
    #10
  11. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 24, 2004
    #11
  12. Bill Hilton Guest

    >From:

    >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
    Bill Hilton, Oct 24, 2004
    #12
  13. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Robert Meyers, Oct 24, 2004
    #13
  14. >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
    David Napierkowski, Oct 25, 2004
    #14
  15. "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.


    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
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 25, 2004
    #15
  16. >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.
    David Napierkowski, Oct 25, 2004
    #16
  17. Guest

    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"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> 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
    >
    >
    , Oct 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Guest

    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, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote:

    >>From:

    >
    >>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
    >
    , Oct 25, 2004
    #18
  19. Guest

    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, (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
    , Oct 25, 2004
    #19
  20. Guest

    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"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"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.

    >
    >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
    >
    >
    , Oct 25, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan Browne

    Re: New Mamiya 645 may influence DSLR prices

    Alan Browne, Sep 29, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    46
    Views:
    969
    Skip M
    Oct 7, 2004
  2. Linda_N

    Mamiya ZD 22 Megapixels cameral announced

    Linda_N, Oct 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    472
    Linda_N
    Oct 7, 2004
  3. Michael McNulty

    Mamiya ZD

    Michael McNulty, Nov 14, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    375
    Gene Palmiter
    Nov 14, 2004
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Mamiya Sekor 60mm f/2.8 1:1 macro

    Siddhartha Jain, Oct 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,895
    Peter Marquis-Kyle
    Oct 14, 2005
  5. Bill Hilton
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    313
    Scott W
    Dec 21, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page