Mamiya announces DL33 for those who need more than 28 megapixels
By Tim Stevens 
posted March 19th 2009 8:16AM
posted March 19th 2009 8:16AM
[Via Topix]
posted March 19th 2009 8:16AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I imagine this is a good camera for studio work, but those are unimpressive iso settings, are those numbers correct?
That's pretty normal for medium format.
28?
Mama-miya!
Why would you use a medium format camera if you need >800 ISO? I mean, I can see there might be _some_ value there, but it's not like there's a lot of demand for low-light MF cameras, so it's probably not worth even the small amount of R&D it would take to get 1600 in there. This will probably change if MF starts to become a more consumer-oriented product that people will drag to parties, but until then there's just no reason.
@iGoon#2
Miyamama!
This is a Medium format camera, mounted on a tripod in a studio or out doors, rarely are there ever going to be a need for 1600 ISO, MF is just not used for Sports photography... 50 ISO is what I used to shoot slides with and it equals a finer quality picture and in the digital realm that means virtually no noise or color banding, which is a very good thing... even on my EOS 5D I use the lowest ISO setting I can for the available light.
Well, geez, might as well pick up two for that price! :o
I'm sure it can take some fantastic images, but the closest I'll ever get is seeing the images in a magazine somewhere.
Negative voted for obvious-bot.
Agreed, while this is a medium format camera, those ISO settings are a turn-off.
What the heck are you talking about obvious bot? Way to be Mr. Vague this morning.
Negative voted for being a complete douche!
ISO 800 is the exactly the same max ISO as what other Medium Format Digitals like the Hasselblad H3D can do. This is because medium format cameras are designed for maximum image quality, dynamic range, 16-bit images, etc. Which means focusing more towards low ISO performance.
The guy who posted the link got his post deleted, so chill out kid. And don't bother posting a comment if it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Really ISO complaints? I assume they all come from non-pro photographers....
Go spec out any other digital back and see how many you find that reach over 800 ISO.then ask a pro photographer how often they shoot with a medium format back and how often they shoot above 200 ISO.
You don't take a medium format back in low light situations. It's mainly a studio/ on location setup and at ALL TIMES the shooter will have access to more lighting equipment then you can imagine.
Me, I'd prefer the back on a monorail camera. But then again, I shoot for art sake.
I think the point is comparing the ISO performance of a smaller sensor, like that of the Nikon D3, and then thinking that you could keep ISO performance high while increasing the sensor size (since ISO performance stereotypically goes down when megapixels increase but the sensor size stays the same). I'm not sure of the exact ratios, but if the ratios are right then wouldn't this be a correct assumption? Although studio work is the one and pretty much only domain for medium format at this time, it wasn't always like that - large format film is used to shoot landscapes and it would be nice if larger-format digital bodies started working towards that end again, where higher ISO might be useful due to dynamic elements of the scene.
Large- and medium-format landscape shooters are going to want to keep the ISO low and use tripods in situations where light is questionable. The stratospheric ISO's available in 35mm DSLR's are great for sports, photojournalism, or snapshots that won't necessarily be displayed in large format in fine art exhibits, IMO. If someone is going to drop this much coin for a body, they're probably going to want to keep it anchored to a tripod rather than losing detail by cranking the ISO to 3200+
They are big sensors, to think it's the same sensor under the hood of a D3X, you're way off base. To make each and every photosite on a even 22MP back 2 stops more sensitive to light and still get the image to come out usable, the price of the back will skyrocket.
Those Mediumformat Cameras get cheaper and cheaper. :) Well it includes a lens for 20k thats not so bad, but i think in that 20k taxes aren't included. If you have look at Sinar or Leaf you wont get that much for 20k....maybe a back with 21MPX without camera.
The ISO is even pretty high for MF Backs... it usally goes from 100-400 ... at least those i worked with. The market aint so big that it makes sense to start an extreme ISO race like in the normal SLR maket, most of the photographers with MF Cameras use some kind of flash even outdoors.
With the proper tax for form for business equipment you won't pay sales tax on it.
Mamiya 645AFDIII bodies like this camera use M645 lenses. They are comparatively affordable to other medium format digitals since they have been making so many for decades, you can buy a lot of them used for several hundred dollars even. Not to mention the Mamiya-Sekors are excellent quality.
Out of interest, what's the guesstimated equivalent no. of pixels in comparison to, err, film?
The normal TV or even HD film is waaaaaaay less.
TV is 540 scan lines, or 480p then you have 720p and 1080p, which are all the vertical amount of pixels, compared to a normal 6mp camera which is about 2550 pixels high? I think...?
Uh oh, you are about to start a holy war.
Using low ISO film (25-50) you can probably get the equivalent of about 20MP but in general, in terms of pixels and noise, digital wins hands down. The advantage that film still holds is dynamic range.
For 35mm film (equivalent of your full frame DSLRs) it is about 20mp. But these sensors are about twice as big, so you're talking 40mp with good film run through a good scanner.
Bear in mind it is also much cheaper to get that sort of quality. Medium format film cameras are very inexpensive these days. A full set up could be had for about $2,000. Add in a good scanner like a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for about $4,000 and you're getting similar resolution images to a $40,000 digital medium format setup.
@lostmotel
LOL
No no, I meant "film" as in camera film used to take still images.
^^^That was in response to Cengger.
So, 20MP eh? As you've probably gathered I know zilcho about photography :), I was just curious.
I can't figure out if the comment system is broken, or if you're broken. I think it's you.
There are much better deals to be had with Phase backs right now. If you buy a P30+ (31.2MP) which I believe is the same price, you get a new Phase One camera body (same as this Mamiya) plus a 40mm, 80mm AND 120mm Macro lens thrown in.
That's at least $3000 of extra lens.
Sure, but the P30/P30+ back is really designed for portraiture and textiles and that where is will trump and 60MP back. However, if you need way more versatility from a back, P30 ain't the way to go.
Yeah - and if you really want to talk about mega-pixels and image quality the P65+ is the 60MP digital back from Phase One. Though you are also talking about very large amount of money ;)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-plus-field.shtml
@Shenanigans,
I have had a P30 for almost 3 years, and I shoot fashion, so I beg to differ.
Eric f-
What do you beg to differ?
The fact that it's not as versatile as a P65+, P45+, or P22+ is true. Put your P30+ on a view camera. It's not going to work properly, trust me.
I've also used a P30+. I know how and what the back is designed to.
As for using it for fashion, are you friggin serious???
Portraits+textiles= FASHION
OMGROTFLBBQ FAIL!
@ Shenanigans, for that last part, grow up.
maybe I didn't express myself properly. I beg to differ that the P30 is not as versatile as the other backs you mentioned. What the heck is a P22? I don't know, but the P30 can do anything that the P21, 45, and 65 can do, in any climate, anywhere. Aside from the number of MP, any of those back with Mamiya mount will work identically on my camera. The P30 also has higher MP than the P21, and equal pixel size to the 45.
How do you define versatile? and not being your choice as the back to use on a view camera does not make something not versatile.
20mp for film at 25 iso? What are you smoking?
Medium format film scanned at LOW resolution gets close to 100 MP. Beyond that the file sizes get unwieldy.
Even relatively tiny 35mm film at higher ISO's can still hold 20-25 MP of data.
Film simply holds a LOT more data than any digital back can deliver.
Dynamic range is also much better, usually by two to three orders of magnitude.
Still a pain in the a** to use though....
Save your hyperbole. While I agree that film has a great level of detail and dynamic range, 2 or 3 orders of magnitude is BS. 2 or 3 stops, yes, but 2 or 3 orders of magnitude would suggest 100 to 1000 times the dynamic range. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
Not. A. Chance.
Light intensity is logarithmic, too. Wiki that. One to two orders is exactly correct.
Film has one to two orders of magnitude better range than CCD's. Period. Try to Wiki that. It's there too.
One order of magnitude = 3 stops, but if you were really photographers you'd know that and would have kept your mouths shut.
I think this companies don't get it. More MP does not necessarily mean better image quality.
Take the iPhone for instance, I'm damn sure that it takes better pictures than Sony's 12MP Idou.
Nice parroting of memes you don't fully understand, but no cracker for you this time.
Its not about megapixels, its about pixel density. This actually has one of the LOWEST densities you will find, as the sensor size is huge. This is the antithesis of the megapixel wars.
You're kidding right...
"Dynamic range is also much better, usually by two to three orders of magnitude. "
Nice parroting of memes YOU don't fully understand...
Wow, that argument has merit when you're talking about the sensors in camera phones and point and shoots, but um, this sensor is huge in comparison. It's over 2x the size of a full frame 24x36 sensor. So, while the megapixel war of words in point and shoots and even some DSLRs is getting old, in these highly specific cameras, the megapixel war is hovering around the 40-60mp range, not 28 and 33.
These camera are specific tools for high end studio/fashion/textile/landscape work. They are not really for taking snap shots of your kid's 6th grade dramatic debut.
@ bannedmonkey. Yes, you've got it exactly right. Yawn on the armchair critics who try to wax techno-philosophic on topics that are beyond their understanding.
"This camera is soooo overdone, dude. My Holga duct-taped to my iPhone can tweak out way more retro-looking, instant-artistic shots. I can't believe anyone would lower themselves to use this overly capitalistic piece of garbage. I bet it doesn't even come with a southern hemisphere collective-made hemp carrying case."
It was kind of stupid to mention this camera in the same breath as the D3X or any other full frame dSLR, this camera is not meant for the same kind of shooting. They're two completely different animals.
I dunno about that. The D3x, being the pinnacle of 35MM DSLRs at the moment, and targeted more at the studio/fashion market with its high pixel count, ultra-low noise and lower frame rate, is clearly taking a shot across the bows of medium format digi, at least at the price point where this Mamiya sits.
Many pros would have to seriously consider what this camera is offering them over say the D3x (much cheaper), Sony Alpha (much much much cheaper) etc. For the majority of paid work, and I say the majority- there are always exceptions, there's just not that much in it anymore.
Rick, there is a difference between pros that shoot weddings and pros that shoot for magazines. The D3x, as great a camera as it is, cannot be compared to medium format. They are different designs for different purposes.
35mm/crop-sensor DSLRs are mainly about portability. Medium/large format is about quality. There is some slight overlap from time to time, but these cameras are not marketed towards the same type of photographers.
Film cameras for the win! Just buy the RZ67 and save your money. You could always buy a leaf aptus back later... FILM FILM FILM!
-photographer with BFA working on MFA
Let's see; 20 grand, and 800 ISO.
Epic Fail.
Next camera, please.
Dear Engadget,
Please ban the words "Epic" and "Fail" from your site.
Thanks.
have you even read any of the previous comments?
@ ben
You do realize that anyone using a MF digital camera doesn't need high ISO? It's like adding 'face detection' on a DSLR. You've either got strobes, good light to begin with, or you're looking to take a long exposure. It's not a camera you pull out of your bag at random moments in crappy lighting situations.
"Light intensity is logarithmic, too."
Light intensity, like ALOT of things can be measured on a logarithmic scale. It simply depends on how you want data to b represented. That does not make it inherently logarithmic.
Photographers use Stops to compare light levels and exposure, which is based on powers of 2. One stop greater = twice as much light. One stop less = half as much. Simple.
3 stops = 8 times the light < One order of magnitude. I didn't have to wiki that. I posted the link for your understanding, not mine. Wikis can be written by anyone and are not an authority for information, which is why I read the article before linking it.
I suspect that your inability to cite what you claim is proving my point: You don't have a hot clue of what you are talking about. This is fairly simple mathematics. As I said 2^3 (the three stops you are referring to) = 8 < 10 (power base used to measure a single order of magnitude). Stop making shit up.