Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: mamiya and phase  (Read 37230 times)
Leonardo Barreto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379



WWW
« Reply #180 on: November 17, 2007, 05:32:39 PM »
ReplyReply

"Canon, Nikon, et al measure their sales volume in the 10,000's and 100,000's." the Canon/Nikon may be an average $2k and MF $15 to $20k?

The consumer market is getting flooded with 6 to 10 megapixel cameras. Is that going to affect the Canon Nikon market? no because 6 mp in a Coolpix is not the same as 6 mp in my S2. Same thing with the 22 MP of the Mk3. This are pixels produced by sensels half the size of my P 25, it would be like a car with half the displacement using an enormous turbo charger to catch up with the cars in the next formula, if the two have same performance then we are in the metaphysical world.

Medium format has, in practical terms, merged with Large Format. I don't see how this new "larger format" would disappear because of the Mk3. Also you cannot mount a Mk3 on a view camera (I mean, not mount it in a satisfying way, the mirror gets in the way of wide angular lenses etc).

Mamiya used to have an entire line of MF systems: The RB, RZ, the 7, the 6 a single lens reflex with interchangeable optics, the 645 PRO and the 645 AF. They will probably not go away just because  of Hasselblad. Now they have a solid working relation with a major back company, (Mamiya was acquired by a company that some describe as "the Google of Japan" that can provide the most needed software help --but with Phase I don't see much more need-)

To say that, in the past year, Mamiya was distracted is probably an understatement, the ZD camera/back experiment almost killed them. I don't know what happened to Phase, but Hasselblad has a very aggressive marketing operation going on, so that probably counts too.

Things will definitively get interesting in Q1-08. Major clash of H6y, H3 and the new camera -- I suggest for a nickname PHASE 2 System, or P2 -- so, we can only sit and wait ...
Logged

The important thing is not to stop questioning---Albert Einstein.
My Webpage/LeonardoBarreto.com
Leonardo Barreto alamy
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1098



WWW
« Reply #181 on: November 17, 2007, 05:59:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Can someone remind me what the next step is likely to be beyond (if that is the right word) the 39mp P45+ and similar?  Is there an even higher pixel count for MF on the immediate horizon?  I ask because there seems to be a sense that 22mp is fronteir where "35mm" sensor cameras and medium format meet, at least in terms of pixel count.  What happens if the MF baseline rises to 39 or more MP?  And if it does, what do Canon and Nikon do - try and keep up, or focus on the market the smaller format was intended for, before we went all wide eyed about "medium format quality" from 35mm format cameras.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 787


« Reply #182 on: November 17, 2007, 06:31:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Honestly, how much more do we really need? I'm not even sure I need more than the 22MP in my P25. If anything I would rather see improved performance like higher/better ISO, dynamic range, etc, than more MP.

Quote
Can someone remind me what the next step is likely to be beyond (if that is the right word) the 39mp P45+ and similar?  Is there an even higher pixel count for MF on the immediate horizon?  I ask because there seems to be a sense that 22mp is fronteir where "35mm" sensor cameras and medium format meet, at least in terms of pixel count.  What happens if the MF baseline rises to 39 or more MP?  And if it does, what do Canon and Nikon do - try and keep up, or focus on the market the smaller format was intended for, before we went all wide eyed about "medium format quality" from 35mm format cameras.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
bradleygibson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 829


WWW
« Reply #183 on: November 17, 2007, 06:50:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Honestly, how much more do we really need? I'm not even sure I need more than the 22MP in my P25. If anything I would rather see improved performance like higher/better ISO, dynamic range, etc, than more MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153694\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd be quite satisfied with a 56mm square sensor at 5 microns. (That's ~125Mp)

(Under $50K, please).

I know, I'll be waiting a while...
« Last Edit: November 17, 2007, 06:52:52 PM by bradleygibson » Logged

MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #184 on: November 17, 2007, 06:59:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Much of the 'MF magic' was quietly being delivered by the Leica digital module some time ago. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the wow-factor luring Canon 1 Series users towards MF backs with similar pixel counts has at least something to do with weaker/non-existent AA filters. If you set a DMR capture alongside a ZD capture and a 1Ds II capture, the Canon image immediately appears to lack the 3D quality delivered by the other two.

It's been interesting to see how a 'hot-rodded' 5D performs without the AA filter; I'd really like to see Canon offer some AA options on the Mark III. And I'd like to see a 16-22MP 36mm Leica-tuned chip thrown into the mix before sacrificing the convenience, speed, power and flexibility of the latest generation of 35mm DSLRs.

I'm fundamentally skeptical about the utility of 39MP cameras. A really nice 22MP image is sufficient for 95% of imaginable applications. Stitching and shifting whittle the remainder down to maybe 1% . . . I mean, how big does the print have to be before the extra 17MP makes a meaningful difference? 5ft? 10ft? Naturally, this fact won't stop cameras being sold, and lusted after, on the basis of pixel counts – even though most readers of this forum would prefer to see improvements in dynamic range, shooting speed, accurate AF, high ISO performance and even image stabilisation. Otherwise we'd all be shooting with G9s.
Logged
Leonardo Barreto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379



WWW
« Reply #185 on: November 17, 2007, 07:14:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't need an upgrade, or more of anything than the P25/afd that I have since I shoot artwork for galleries. I also maxed up my credit card to get the back, so I will be paying for some time to come.

On the other side, I think that when they invented the automobile someone said that we did not need to go faster than 50km/h or something like that? and that we would actually get sick if we went faster.

Computers are always are getting faster, memory cheaper, so I'm not opposed to have a 39mp upgrade in the future, after all, the standard for high end art reproduction used to be an 8x10 transparency.

The fact that most photographers would be happy with a 63MB file doesn't mean that others could not use a bit --or much -- more than that. Aplications like: table top, food, product, landscape, fashion, museums, and others come to mind. All the users of large format AND medium format.

We also want a place for our own where no Nikon or Canon could ever get to us, is that a bad thing to ask?
Logged

The important thing is not to stop questioning---Albert Einstein.
My Webpage/LeonardoBarreto.com
Leonardo Barreto alamy
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #186 on: November 17, 2007, 10:54:43 PM »
ReplyReply

You are right, Graham: have tried to explain this since ages, but nobody believed it.

Quote
The problem with this idea is that I believe the ZD was being sold off basically at cost price, to try and offload stock before the already outdated ZDs became unsellable dinosaurs. I don't think these prices are possible for a profitable business and the volumes we are talking here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The costs are even higher than your figure.

Quote
The big issue is the price of the sensor. I got a price from Kodak on a 22MP sensor a while ago and even in quantity the price was around $5K, iirc, so you can easily imagine that a ZD costs $6K+ to build.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Best regards,
Thierry
Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #187 on: November 18, 2007, 12:38:35 AM »
ReplyReply

As end users, if a manufacturer is willing to sell a new back at a loss, I don't see any problem buying into it.  Their commercial reason is not going to affect the back's performance so long as the product is properly made and comes with warranty.  After all, those other brands selling backs at much higher prices are not completely problem-free are they?  It is a question of choice and every time someone buys a product there is always an element of risk involved anyway.
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2363


« Reply #188 on: November 18, 2007, 02:57:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure whether I need more than 39Mp. I don't at this moment. I like to have it because downsizing is one of the best(fastest) ways to mask post processing flaws (basically means you can get away with working sloppier/faster).

I would wish for:

Multishot in one shot. eg. Foveon-like sensors.
Better ISO performance & smaller increments in ISO (on some cameras I can only adjust aperture & shutterspeed in full stops)
Longer exposure times (I don't own Phase)
In-back free-size Raw crop.

Other than that, there are not that many things I can currently think of. Sure, you could wish for all sorts of things to make it come closer to the top-end DSLR's but I for one wish backs don't go there. For me working with MFDB's is different if I want the DSLR experience I take the DSLR with me.

I would definitely want a quad-core MBP with 16Gb of memory and 1Tb of storage. I like working on my MBP because I can take it with me instead of sitting in my cold studio behind the studio machine. Has anyone ever tried to make a pano from 39Mp files? My MBP with 3Gb, 2.2, etc. comes to a grinding halt if I stitch more than 6 images  
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 03:02:06 AM by Dustbak » Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #189 on: November 18, 2007, 03:49:11 AM »
ReplyReply

It depends on a few things.

For ME 22MP-31MP is more than enough for commercial work.

HOWEVER.
Since MP's are going up you can do some fun stuff.
I love for example to make pictures on the street, with the 22MP back I can zoom in and see all kinds of small detail I missed while walking there, with the 5D the small details are to say the least a bit more foggy.

So for that I love more MP's.

What I find more important ?
More dynamic range (always a good thing).
Better higher ISO so I can leave the 5D at home on holiday.
Faster AF mode, the mode now is perfect for nailing focus but sometimes you need a bit more speed.

But because people seem to think in MP's only as you can see now on for example DPR where the 1DsIII is already called a MF killer because it has the same MP count  the guys from marketing will probarbly win from the engineers and they want more MP's...... I'm afraid.
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2363


« Reply #190 on: November 18, 2007, 03:55:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah, I don't know why people are so into more MP's. My 16MP multishot back (in multishot mode) makes mince-meat from my CF39 IQ-wise.
Logged
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


WWW
« Reply #191 on: November 18, 2007, 01:07:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The problem with this idea is that I believe the ZD was being sold off basically at cost price, to try and offload stock before the already outdated ZDs became unsellable dinosaurs. I don't think these prices are possible for a profitable business and the volumes we are talking here.

The big issue is the price of the sensor. I got a price from Kodak on a 22MP sensor a while ago and even in quantity the price was around $5K, iirc, so you can easily imagine that a ZD costs $6K+ to build.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


The scope of this "joint venture" between Mamiya and Phase is quite complex to decipher from a business standpoint. Both companies have a mandate to produce a profit from their sales. If Phase is going to provide its know how for a ZDII, the price has to go up because there are two companies that need a profit from the product, not just Mamiya. Moreover, what incentive does Phase have to help Mamiya produce really first  class versions of the ZD and the ZD back at low price points, when such products would likeky cannibalize the higher margin products that Phase manufactures like the P series?
Logged

Mort54
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 590


WWW
« Reply #192 on: November 18, 2007, 01:26:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone ever tried to make a pano from 39Mp files? My MBP with 3Gb, 2.2, etc. comes to a grinding halt if I stitch more than 6 images.
I routinely stich up to four 39 MP files on a Mac Pro with 4 GB of RAM, and I've gone as high as five (tho that's pretty rare). It remains pretty snappy throughout the process. Laptops have considerably slower front side busses, and much slower hard drives, than the typical desktop machine however. Plus you're doing six images vs my four or five.

For the other poster who asked who needs more than 22 MP. All I can say is 39 isn't enough, at least not for landscapes :-)
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 01:27:12 PM by Mort54 » Logged

I Reject Your Reality And Substitute My Own
vgogolak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 337


WWW
« Reply #193 on: November 18, 2007, 01:57:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah, I don't know why people are so into more MP's. My 16MP multishot back (in multishot mode) makes mince-meat from my CF39 IQ-wise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153781\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I can sort of belive that, but love to see an example
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


WWW
« Reply #194 on: November 18, 2007, 02:07:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I just read somewhere that the human eye has around 120,000,000 different light receptors inside.
So maybe, a 120 megapixel sensor is all we need to match human vision.

Eduardo


Quote
I routinely stich up to four 39 MP files on a Mac Pro with 4 GB of RAM, and I've gone as high as five (tho that's pretty rare). It remains pretty snappy throughout the process. Laptops have considerably slower front side busses, and much slower hard drives, than the typical desktop machine however. Plus you're doing six images vs my four or five.

For the other poster who asked who needs more than 22 MP. All I can say is 39 isn't enough, at least not for landscapes :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153896\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2363


« Reply #195 on: November 18, 2007, 02:28:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can sort of belive that, but love to see an example
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is late over here but I will try to setup a comparison between my 384 in 4shot against my Cf39 this week. I will take the same subject/camera/lens/etc to be able to really see who makes mince-meat out of who.

I'll post the results in a new thread. If I forget and you really do want to see this comparison feel free to PM & remind me.
Logged
jpjespersen
Guest
« Reply #196 on: November 18, 2007, 02:34:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has anyone ever tried to make a pano from 39Mp files? My MBP with 3Gb, 2.2, etc. comes to a grinding halt if I stitch more than 6 images 
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a panorama with p45+ of about 4 shots overlapping.  The exposure was over 2 minutes for each shot.  Did it on my older G5 dual 2ghz with 4gb of ram.
[a href=\"http://jpjespersen.blogspot.com/2007/11/just-discovered-this-detail.html]http://jpjespersen.blogspot.com/2007/11/ju...his-detail.html[/url]
« Last Edit: November 18, 2007, 02:35:24 PM by jpjespersen » Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #197 on: November 18, 2007, 04:00:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The scope of this "joint venture" between Mamiya and Phase is quite complex to decipher from a business standpoint. Both companies have a mandate to produce a profit from their sales. If Phase is going to provide its know how for a ZDII, the price has to go up because there are two companies that need a profit from the product, not just Mamiya. Moreover, what incentive does Phase have to help Mamiya produce really first  class versions of the ZD and the ZD back at low price points, when such products would likeky cannibalize the higher margin products that Phase manufactures like the P series?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153889\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree. I have to assume that Mamiya has dropped out of the back business to concentrate on the cameras and lenses. Phase can help keep the platform alive in return for supplying the backs. The partnership could keep both alive, and there is probably a contract to that effect.

However, the ZD prices are totally unrealistic for the near future, imho. We already know the price of Phase backs.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #198 on: November 18, 2007, 05:11:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
I have heard from the Mamiya/Phase agent here that the Capture One will support the ZD. This most likely will happen next year. I will have to purchase the C1 software when this happens. Very good news plus it will work with my Canon to. I still would like to see Phase working on a new ZDII with Mamiya, make it an entry level into MFD.
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Leonardo Barreto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 379



WWW
« Reply #199 on: November 18, 2007, 06:28:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see why Mamiya should abandon the digital back, probably the opposite will happen. It seams that the problem with the first generation was with software and the company that purchased Mamiya is a software firm. Someone at Mamiya told me at last months fair in NY, that "they offered to do all the programing for them".

I think that Phase One was probably the partner in need here. They have no other platform ! you can't sell backs that attach to no camera, so Mamiya probably said: I will give you half a camera if you give me half a digital back.

This way the "Phase 2 645" camera is going to eat at the 645 AFD -- that will continue to be a Mamiya system -- and the ZD back will also eat at Phase One digital back share of the market.

The new generation of the ZD back may be more atractive than ever, and, remember that Japanese firms are known for long term developing strategies.

Only by being able to shoot with C1 (now C1 4) on the ZD makes it very interesting indeed.



Quote
Hi
I have heard from the Mamiya/Phase agent here that the Capture One will support the ZD. This most likely will happen next year. I will have to purchase the C1 software when this happens. Very good news plus it will work with my Canon to. I still would like to see Phase working on a new ZDII with Mamiya, make it an entry level into MFD.
Thanks Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

The important thing is not to stop questioning---Albert Einstein.
My Webpage/LeonardoBarreto.com
Leonardo Barreto alamy
Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad