Mamiya DL28

It is nice to see that MF prices are becoming better.
On the other hand this territory seems to be less
mature than the small format - poor lcd-s, no high
ISOs, slow. For example the 21MP Canon feels amazingly
responsive, a Mamiya ZD with the same MP count
is like a dinosaur, especially playback, not to mention
not much feedback is possible from the lcd. I know
perfectly well that they are quite different beasts,
but some (doable) technological advancement couldn't
be bad. As for low ISOs there is no competition when
image quality is concerned. Also the possibility to have
even narrower dof sounds good for portraiture.

In conclusion, I think that there is still some room for
improvement, being it price or features. I have time
to wait.

Any thoughts on that?

Ivar

My comment is not directly a reply to yours, but since Pentax had a good MF system in the film days, they could have kept the 645N line going with a digital model.

Perhaps with the shrinking MF market, conservative Pentax said no.

I really didn't think I would need anything "bigger" than my Pentax K10d, but when I saw the high ISO performance of the nikon ff's I changed my mind.

when and if Pentax goes ff I will take a close look. would a pentax 645 sell? It might, but it would have to be 30 plus mp, and sell for 10 grand or less. If they could do it with in body image stabilization then it would be a game changer.

I doubt that anyone who is going to fork over the kind of money mamya wants for thier camera would not spend the extra bucks to own a Hasselblad. Because at the 15,000 dollar level and above you are either a true professional, or a "stupid rich" wannabe. I would be suprised if they could sell even a hundred of them at that price.

Levi Starks

Keep in mind that this is rather a Leaf camera than Mamiya.
Also Mamiya is open platform and Hassy not. Considering
that, they are rather equal.

oldschool said:

I doubt that anyone who is going to fork over the kind of money mamya
wants for thier camera would not spend the extra bucks to own a
Hasselblad. Because at the 15,000 dollar level and above you are
either a true professional, or a "stupid rich" wannabe. I would be
suprised if they could sell even a hundred of them at that price.

Levi Starks

Click to expand...

ihv said:

[....] a Mamiya ZD with the same MP count
is like a dinosaur, especially playback, not to mention
not much feedback is possible from the lcd.

Click to expand...

I picked one up at an expo last year and I was appalled at how useless the display was. Especially considering how much you pay for it. I felt like I was looking at a display on a mobile phone.

The only thing I could sum it up to is the fact that you really shouldn't need the display if you're used to shooting film, or you can opt to shoot tethered and use the computer to preview (I'm assuming it can do this).

--
---Terry



http://photostuff.org/myzoo.html

mf may be the way of the future because of mp war. Smart mfrs may want to position themselves now in that arena.

The facts are that it appears that they are reaching the max for crop-sensors mp 15MP for Canon 50D.....I don't know if anyone can squeeze 20MP in 1.5 or 1.6 crop sensor. So the next logical step is FF because you can squeeze more mps out of it. FFs are getting cheaper, hence the chance to up those MPs in larger sensors. You saw Canon at 20some MP in 5D II. Eventually, in 3-4 years, when FFs are going to replace the present CFs, they are going to run out of MPs at what, 30-40MPs? The next logical step is to go MF, you can squeeze more MPs, advertise every new camera with more MPs until you exhaust these, then come up with even larger sensors, etc.....

Same happened with computers and Mhz until recent

--
Canon 40D- a surprise anniversary gift from my wife
Lenses: Tamron 18-270VC, Canon 28-135IS

Other cameras: Fuji S6000fd, F30
Sanyo E2 Underwater Camcorder/Camera

Previous owner of Canon A75, S3is, S400, SD800is, Fuji
F10, Panasonic TZ3 and TZ5, Ricoh R7

Interesting that we now get the new Mamiya with a Leaf back and we have the same Mamiya that accepts Phase One backs and then there is also the Phase One camera that is essentially a renamed Mamiya. Seems to be a bit crowded in that relatively small MF market?

It has far more natural look (natural sharpness, high DR, very clean
shadow area) than a small format camera with AA filter and tiny pixels.
When prints are getting bigger and quality is important then I do not
see much alternative.

Cheers,
Ivar

Simon97 said:

My comment is not directly a reply to yours, but since Pentax had a
good MF system in the film days, they could have kept the 645N line
going with a digital model.

Perhaps with the shrinking MF market, conservative Pentax said no.

Click to expand...

Pentax has been working on the 645D for several years. My understanding is that they were very close to launching last spring, but the project was put on indefinite hold after Hoya took over
--
Rosco
My Advise is always free. So take it at it's face value
http://www.pbase.com/roscot

ihv said:

It has far more natural look (natural sharpness, high DR, very clean
shadow area) than a small format camera with AA filter and tiny pixels.
When prints are getting bigger and quality is important then I do not
see much alternative.

Cheers,
Ivar

Click to expand...

Exactly, No AA filter and less enlargment of the original capture plus at least 1 stop more DR = more natural looking and detailed large prints, if this was not the case then pros would not be spending the big bucks for these systems. If you need the quality and can't afford $20,000 or more than $15,000 starts to look like the ticket. I think that $9,999 is where MF should start though, give it a few more years. Perhaps Nikon or Canon will come up with something close at under $10,000. I think most successful wedding pros could justify a MF under $10,000 to start. Although many may feel that current DSLR technology is just fine for their needs.

Imagine how long it would take to process 200-400 files from a wedding with a 50MB MF camera.
--
Sincerely

Ron J

ihv said:

In conclusion, I think that there is still some room for
improvement, being it price or features. I have time
to wait.

Any thoughts on that?

Click to expand...

Yes .. its ugly

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

What are your needs?
If a hobbiest, you may have the luxury to wait.

Even if the bodies come down a bit in price, I doubt the lenses will do the same.

V

ihv said:

In conclusion, I think that there is still some room for
improvement, being it price or features. I have time
to wait.

Any thoughts on that?

Ivar

Click to expand...

ihv said:

It is nice to see that MF prices are becoming better.
On the other hand this territory seems to be less
mature than the small format - poor lcd-s, no high
ISOs, slow. For example the 21MP Canon feels amazingly
responsive, a Mamiya ZD with the same MP count
is like a dinosaur, especially playback, not to mention
not much feedback is possible from the lcd. I know
perfectly well that they are quite different beasts,
but some (doable) technological advancement couldn't
be bad. As for low ISOs there is no competition when
image quality is concerned. Also the possibility to have
even narrower dof sounds good for portraiture.

In conclusion, I think that there is still some room for
improvement, being it price or features. I have time
to wait.

Any thoughts on that?

Ivar

Click to expand...

Unless and until medium format CMOS sensors make their appearance, prices will likely remain high. That is because CCD sensors that require stitching must be made very carefully or they won't work. The edges of the multiple exposures on a CCD sensor must be exactly aligned, but the mulitiple exposures of CMOS sensors need only to be connected electrically, as Canon's technical literature pointed out.

That said, those who need to shoot macros at f/16 or smaller apertures would need medium format. That is because diffraction limits FF 35mm sensors to a maximum of 7mp resolution at f/16, whereas medium format sensors that measure 36x48mm are able to resolve 15mp. Therefore if large prints are needed and the subject is macro photography, there is no substitute for medium format. FF medium format is capable of resolving even more because of the larger sensor. But for those who are on a budget, the Mamiya DL28 would be a workable compromise for the macro photographer needing to make large prints.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

ihv said:

It is nice to see that MF prices are becoming better.
On the other hand this territory seems to be less
mature than the small format - poor lcd-s, no high
ISOs, slow.

Click to expand...

Current digital MF systems are all made for studio photography and location shots. They are meant to be shot from a tripod, with a complete lighting setup, tethered to a computer. The kind where bulk is no problem since you have assistants to do the carrying. They are very much not made for handheld, improvised photography out on the streets or in the wild, the kind of photography amateurs are mostly doing. And with that, the perceived shortcomings make sense.

With the camera on a tripod and with full lighting control there is little need for higher ISO sensitivities. The sensors and all supporting circuitry is dedicated to getting as good quality and high dynamic range from the sensor base sensitivity as possible. Higher-iso is only supported to the extent that it doesn't compromise the primary goal of extremely high quality base ISO.

With the camera tethered the on-board lcd screen is normally not important, neither is the ability to quickly store those images on on-board storage, or battery lifetime or any of those other portability factors we tend to worry about. What is important is getting the image from the camera to the computer and up on the big screen as quickly and efficiently as you can.

Current MF systems don't make a splash among amateurs because they are not made for amateur use; they're singularly bad at that. this is one excellent example where "pro gear" does not just mean "good", but "different". This is also why the possibility of a Pentax MF camera can be very significant: their MF customer base is largely the dedicated high-end amateur and the mobile nature photographer, and an MF camera from them is likely to be a far better match for us amateurs than the current offerings from Hasselblad, Mamiya and so on.

--
Pics: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jannem/
Blog: http://janneinosaka.blogspot.com

Hi. Does this come with a lens?

Best regards,

Hiroyuki

JanneM said:

ihv said:

It is nice to see that MF prices are becoming better.
On the other hand this territory seems to be less
mature than the small format - poor lcd-s, no high
ISOs, slow.

Click to expand...

Current digital MF systems are all made for studio photography and
location shots. They are meant to be shot from a tripod, with a
complete lighting setup, tethered to a computer.

With the camera on a tripod and with full lighting control there is
little need for higher ISO sensitivities.

With the camera tethered the on-board lcd screen is normally not
important.

Current MF systems don't make a splash among amateurs because they
are not made for amateur use; they're singularly bad at that.

Click to expand...

JanneM said:

This is
one example where "pro gear" does not just mean "good", but
"different".

Click to expand...

Thank you for the emphasizing that Tripod Monted Studio Cameras are not Sports cameras. Nor are they good Wedding Portrait cameras, nor are they necessarily Architectural Photography cameras, nor are adequate as a NASA cameras for space .

The popular notion of the " Professional Camera " does not exist outside the mind of the amateur lusting for the latest Canon 1Ds or Nikon D3X.

It is a measure of the cleverness of the current advertising by Canon and Nikon, that Forum members want high ISO , fast frame rates, fast autofocus speeds, smaller bodies, and many other attributes.

ihv said:

Any thoughts on that?

Click to expand...

I would rather use that $$$ to buy a car or a house, it is not worth to buy a digital camera that expensive, remember all kinds of digital cameras will be failed to work after 3 years, like parts or shutter wear out, CCD/LCD develop dead pixel, weird problems like the captured images not storing to CF sometimes, or the rechargable battery after 3 year has stopped manufactory

Absolutic said:

The facts are that it appears that they are reaching the max for
crop-sensors mp 15MP for Canon 50D.....I don't know if anyone can
squeeze 20MP in 1.5 or 1.6 crop sensor.

Click to expand...

Why not? If you used the same size pixels as in the G10, you could have an APS-C sensor with around 115mp.

Image processing and storage is holding this back. Would you like to buy a 115mp 50D where it can shoot less than 1fps, and writing one raw image (approximately 125mb) would take 5 seconds?

Absolutic said:

So the next logical step is
FF because you can squeeze more mps out of it. FFs are getting
cheaper, hence the chance to up those MPs in larger sensors.

Click to expand...

It doesn't cost more to stuff more MP onto the same size sensor. It's the size of the sensor that drives cost. Large sensors are expensive, there is no way around that.

Absolutic said:

You
saw Canon at 20some MP in 5D II. Eventually, in 3-4 years, when FFs
are going to replace the present CFs, they are going to run out of
MPs at what, 30-40MPs?

Click to expand...

FF will not replace APS-C. The cost difference is not going to magically disappear.

And if you use the same size pixels as are used on the G10 you can have about 250mp on FF.

Absolutic said:

The next logical step is to go MF, you can
squeeze more MPs, advertise every new camera with more MPs until you
exhaust these, then come up with even larger sensors, etc.....

Click to expand...

Sure, assuming you still have some home equity and can remortgage the house. MF sensors are and will be considerably more expensive than FF.

Absolutic said:

Same happened with computers and Mhz until recent

Click to expand...

Completely different situation.

You got faster computers due to shrinking feature sizes. You could make the same processor smaller and faster, and because it is smaller it is also cheaper. Or you could stuff a whole lot more into the processor (cache, cores, etc), keep the size the same (and therefore the same cost), and get faster still.

With image sensors the size of the part stays the same. Same size = same cost.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

Anastigmat said:

That said, those who need to shoot macros at f/16 or smaller
apertures would need medium format.

Click to expand...

Nope.

The "crop factor" between 645 and 35mm is about 1.6. Let's say you are shooting 100mm f/16 on 35mm. To get the same framing and DOF with 645 you need 160mm f/25. Diffraction limit is the same.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed