I don't know you, but I think I hate you now;( Pardon me while I go cry over in the corner.

Paratima wrote:
Dayum!

And for ONLY $28,795...

Edited by Paratima on Aug 15, 2007 at 09:58 PM GMT


Thanks for answering my next question.

Rich

Thanks everyone for responding.....belive me...I am now as sick as you.....but misery loves company!!!

Sorry for starting off on the wrong foot with you there Jeff...OL!!!

Dont hate the player....hate the game!!!

Now......Think!!!!...what are the lottery numbers gonna be this Saturday?

Darned powerball over 200 million....I think I could afford it then.



Roman

I wish I had never read this thread.

I'm keeping my 5D in the bag today, and I will never mention this incident when it is out...

Just beautiful.

I'm speechless. Hopefully this thing will be like most technology and after a few years get compressed down to being affordable.

If only I wasn't still in school and had some sort of a budget. Although that budget would likely still be to small.

I need to start selling more prints.

Or body parts.

One question, how big is the file size? I mean, yes, it is amazingly sharp ... but what would it be like working with that image in Photoshop and creating additional layers?

OMG - amazing.

Nothing that could not be done with even a lowly 10d. Just stitch
a few shots together.
Nice detail but for 30K + lenses, + new computer no thanks.


5% cop from a 1ds2..........

Sorry...but the 35MM brand dslr's also dont have the DR of the medium format equipment...nor the bit depth.

I already stich and print from them.....

Roman - I'm sure this is hurting you more than us as we haven't had the pleasure to actually pick one of these gems up. They are just a bit outside of my budget unless I stop feeding the dog. Let's see that's $20 a month x 1,250 months = My New Hassy. Roman, If I win the lotto I will buy you one with a few lenses to boot.

Arhhhh, mannnnnnnn.

roman.johnston wrote:
Sorry...but the 35MM brand dslr's also dont have the DR of the medium format equipment...nor the bit depth.


That begs the question... will they? Or can they even? As technology progresses it's not unreasonable at all to think the 40D and 5D's great great grandsons could have in the neighborhood of 39MP or more, and increased bit depth, 24, even 32bit someday... but at what point will Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies start to out resolve the lenses, causing bit depth and MP advancements in the bodies to become moot?

Sean Mills wrote:
but at what point will Nikon and Canon DSLR bodies start to out resolve the lenses, causing bit depth and MP advancements in the bodies to become moot?

The 1Ds2 already out-resolves most Canon glass. For max resolution, you need exotic lenses. Bit depth is a bit more complex problem. There is still room for improvement, witness the 1D3.

So is it just a matter of Canon getting around to making MkII's of all their glass to catch up with the increasing resolution, or is exotic glass and adapter rings the only solution currently on the horizon for DSLR (non MF) users?

Point and shoots are up to 10megs now I'm sure in a few years they will be 40megs.
The Hassy will have nothing on them and for only a couple hundred dollars too.

Go buy some 3$ provia 100 and a blad from keh and you can save yourself 30,000$

WAYCOOL wrote:
Point and shoots are up to 10megs now I'm sure in a few years they will be 40megs.
The Hassy will have nothing on them and for only a couple hundred dollars too.

Think about sensor size which conditions picture quality. Mircoscopic sensors in point and shoots are crap compared to "normal" and large sensors.

CarloDidier wrote:
WAYCOOL wrote:
Point and shoots are up to 10megs now I'm sure in a few years they will be 40megs.
The Hassy will have nothing on them and for only a couple hundred dollars too.

Think about sensor size which conditions picture quality. Mircoscopic sensors in point and shoots are crap compared to "normal" and large sensors.

Carlo,
The smiley face at the end of his post is there to indicate that he is joking.

Sean - you couldnt give me a 30 or 40 MP 35mm sensor....don't even want it. Just look at the 12MP P&S for the reason why.....insane noise due to pixel density....diffraction would limit me to f/2.8....its just not even feasble.....and my D2X already out resolve my nikon glass....I would have to move to Zeiss glass just to get sharper....

TimV - Ok...since I like instant feedback....that rules that out.....add in what I would need to purchase (drum scanners...dark rooms...etc) to be 100% in control of the process like I am in digital...and it isnt as inexpensive as it seems.

No thanks...will find a way to get MF digital...even if I have to eventually start out with the Mamiya ZD 22MP unit and work up from there. (closer to about 15,000..with basic lens setup)

Roman

Hey Roman.

Yeah, you are right. It's an interesting subject. Based on all I've read, and what's posted here, it seems the ceiling for the balance of IQ and MP in the 35mm format is extremely near.

Oh and for what it's worth... BH does have a Mamiya ZD with 22mp back, and 80mm 1.9 lens bundled for $9999. Maybe in a few years when it's time to upgrade that will be tangible.

Yep....for 35MM....FF at about 16-18MP...and crops about the same pixel density.....were about there for physical limitations on sensors of that size. Now...if we could get the bitrate up to 16, and a DR of about 12 stops....I would be quite pleased with the 35MM arena.

The 15,000 price includes what I would consider a "basic lens setup" dont want to be limited to one lens...lol. I need super wides and medium range....wouldnt mind zooms either....keeps my compositions tight.

Roman

I shoot with a Mamiya 645AFD and Phase P30 back (only 31.6 MP), which produces amazingly nice images, and also for reasons beyond megapixels. It's easy to become spoiled! I recently returned from a trip in Alaska and chose to bring a Canon 5D, as it was the more appropriate platform for me. Even on smaller images (only 16x24), I found myself wanting the MFDB as the difference in range and detail is very apparent. Nice images with the 5D to be sure, but I felt like I was slumming!

A little insight about shooting MF digital. I'm shooting with the same Mamiya 645AFD and lenses that I shot film with. Over the course of several years, I've probably spent more overall on DSLR camera bodies, lenses, and accessories than I have with my investment into a MFDB. Once "you're there"---the spending is not the same as in the DSLR market. (hey, I'm just trying to help some of you guys out that have significant others/wives....)

Same computer, same raw processor (C1Pro), same workflow with CS3.

And the best part: no dust problems on the sensor!

kdphotography wrote: I recently returned from a trip in Alaska and chose to bring a Canon 5D, as it was the more appropriate platform for me. Even on smaller images (only 16x24), I found myself wanting the MFDB as the difference in range and detail is very apparent. Nice images with the 5D to be sure, but I felt like I was slumming!

Oh you poooor thing! .

<--- 5D user. Last time I was in Alaska I only had a 20D. Now I can only WISH I had the DR and resolution of the 5D on those shots. Let alone what your Mamiya could have done.

And the best part: no dust problems on the sensor!

Why is that?

The 5D is a great camera, but dust on the sensor is a major annoyance. In studio or at events, dusting issues on the 5D are not as apparent. But when shooting outdoors using smaller apertures (landscapes and open sky!), dust is more noticeable. When changing lenses on a DSLR (ala 5D), the camera sensor is exposed to the open air, creating the opportunity for the dust to gather on the sensor. MFDBs remain on the back of the camera the same as the MF film back. When changing lenses, the sensor is never exposed (actually it would be the glass filter over the sensor). Cleaning a MFDB is very easy.