Mamiya ZD 22 megapixel D-SLR is finally shipping this month in Japan
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Dec 6th 2005 11:20AM
posted Dec 6th 2005 11:20AM
Mamiya first announced their 22 megapixel ZD medium format digital-SLR more than a year ago and it's finally going to ship, a bit late, but hey this one is worth the wait. This professional-level shooter is up for pre-order (grrr, in Japan only apparently) for delivery on the 21st. Oh, did we mention it'll set you back a cool $10,844 US green equivalent? But this is for pros, son, and features a 14-bit A/D converter recording 12-bit images at 1.5fps, CF and SD storage, 1.8-inch LCD and FireWire support. 12 megapixels or less is just so yesterday.
[via Akihabara News]
that is the sexiest thing i will see all week, and yes i know the victoria secret show is on today.
Compared to the H2D, it's a steal. If anyone wants to get me an H2D with a 100mm f/2.2 for Christmas, though, that would be cool.
So, wait, I was under the impression that you'd only need about 16 MP in order to simulate film quality. So this would be BETTER than film quality?
Grant:
There's no real "rule" as far as how many MP you need to "simulate film quality". First of all, film comes in different sizes, and different stocks. 16mp would probably be enough to simulate the quality of certain 35mm stocks. But this is a medium format camera. Medium format film is better than 35mm film too. Is this camera better than medium format film? Probably not.
The question here is whether it only shoots in 645 (6x4.5) format, considering that the vast majority of Mamiyas shot in that format. I've always been a fan of 6x6 myself. DADDY WANTS!!!!!
btw, just to clarify a bit, there's obviously nothing that makes one digital camera "medium format" vs. another. But that's how Mamiya classifies this camera because of its target market and the target output size of its images. And as such, the camera's designed to take the same lenses its other medium format cameras do, and from the previews I've read it performs like a medium format camera (i.e. veeeeery sloooowly).
Anyway, it's mainly for portrait photographers who would otherwise use one of Mamiya's film cameras with a digital back. (My wedding portraits were taken with a camera just like that, and we got the RAW files back from that shoot... the quality was okay but but I'm sure a real 22mp digital camera would do better.)
Jeff, this is a medium format digital camera. It is classified as such because the sensor is 48mm x 36mm; it thus has a crop factor because the tradition 645 film size is 60mm x 45mm. This is analogous to a typical digital SLR like the Canon 20D which has a 22.5mm x 15mm sensor and is cropped down from the traditional 35mm size of 36mm x 24mm.
Megapixels are fine and all, but if your lens sux ax, or if your sensor is "noisy", you're back where you started - low resolution.
Ive shot with a Canon EOS 1D MarkII which is 16 megapixels (4000+ x 5000+ pixels) on a Honda Civic commercial. And to be quite honest the Canon rivals that of medium format negatives drum-scanned. FYI- drum scanners are really high-res scanners used in commercial photography.
More than likely this camera is probably better than the Canon seeing the sensor is so ginormous.
I just cant wait until we start seeing 100 megapixel images.
hey 9,
take a look at this http://www.tpd.tno.nl/smartsite966.html
2.5 gigapixels baby!!!!
Problem with film is the scanners suck.
6 years ago...you read that right...we took a macro photo of a telephone that had lots of detail. We scanned the resulting transparency using a super high end drum scanner. (don't remeber the brand, but it did cost us $72,000 Cdn) Then we shot the phone with a Leaf back (one of the first ones, 12mpx I think)on a Mamiya body. The Leaf back blew the scanner transparency for detail resolution. Better yet...we then took the transparency, put it on a light table and shot it with the digital back and a macro lens...and the resulting image was better than the scanned tranparency.
not that you would want to shoot all your transparencies with a digital MF...but the digital back cost us $28,000 Cdn and the scanner was $72,000 Cdn...That's the day I decided Digital was going to completed kill off the film market. It was just a matter of time.
Fast forward to today....why would you really want to shoot film and scan? Honestly, why? The technology is affordable and here now...and this camera is proof.