Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

"Mamiya Tempts Photographers With Sample High Res ZD Photos"

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Bill Hilton

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 3:27:36 PM12/19/05
to
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/archives/2005/12/19/mamiya-tempts-photographers-with-sample-zd-photos.html
... from Mamiya's 22 Mpixel medium format digital camera ...

I think I'll download a couple and crank up the ole Epson 4000 and see
how they look.

Bill

Scott W

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 4:03:29 PM12/19/05
to

I downloaded on image Nature_A. I don't know what is wrong but it
looks pretty bad, full of noise, black specks.
There are also a lot of places where the detail seems to be just gone.

Scott

Kinon O'cann

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 6:29:50 PM12/19/05
to
"Mamiya embarasses self by displaying vaporware gear."

Film at 11.

Have they offered a ship date?

"Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1135024056....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Rich

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 9:27:59 PM12/19/05
to
On 19 Dec 2005 12:27:36 -0800, "Bill Hilton" <bhilt...@aol.com>
wrote:

Why do they have the warning, "These are big image files."
1. Anyone even considering this camera will know it.
2. Anyone who can afford this camera won't be on dial-up.
-Rich

Scott W

unread,
Dec 19, 2005, 9:56:29 PM12/19/05
to
Rich wrote:

> Why do they have the warning, "These are big image files."
> 1. Anyone even considering this camera will know it.
> 2. Anyone who can afford this camera won't be on dial-up.

Not everyone is where you can get high speed.

Then too to save bandwidth they would like not everyone to download the
images.

Also the one image I looked at was so bad I would think they would not
want anyone to download them.

Scott

Kinon O'cann

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 4:18:31 PM12/20/05
to

"Rich" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:qvqeq1d59sjp41h1m...@4ax.com...

They forgot one more warning:

3. Warning, camera is vaporware.


Rich

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 8:59:23 PM12/20/05
to

Odd, when you consider there are several medium format digitals out
there now. I wonder if they had trouble with the reflex system, the
mirror mechanism, due to it's size?
-Rich

David J. Littleboy

unread,
Dec 20, 2005, 9:23:25 PM12/20/05
to

"Rich" <no...@none.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:18:31 -0500, "Kinon O'cann"
>>They forgot one more warning:
>>
>>3. Warning, camera is vaporware.
>
> Odd, when you consider there are several medium format digitals out
> there now. I wonder if they had trouble with the reflex system, the
> mirror mechanism, due to it's size?

I haven't made it to the stores yet today (and won't be able to), but the
Japanese camera magazines that hit the streets yesterday claim that it'll be
in the stores today (it's 11:20 Wednesday morning here).

(FWIW, every time I've noticed a camera announcement with a date on it (in a
Japanese magazine), the stores in Tokyo have actually had it on that date.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Stacey

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:45:41 AM12/21/05
to
Scott W wrote:

>
> Bill Hilton wrote:
>>
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/archives/2005/12/19/mamiya-tempts-photographers-with-sample-zd-photos.html
>> ... from Mamiya's 22 Mpixel medium format digital camera ...
>>
>> I think I'll download a couple and crank up the ole Epson 4000 and see
>> how they look.
>>
>> Bill
>
> I downloaded on image Nature_A. I don't know what is wrong but it
> looks pretty bad, full of noise,

Noise? You can't be looking at the same image I just downloaded.


> black specks.

Yes that's kinda odd. The other "C" landscape has some of this as well, not
as pronounced. I wonder if it's a jpeg issue or do the tiffs/RAW also have
this?

>
> There are also a lot of places where the detail seems to be just gone.
>

Probably from over compressing it?

--

Stacey

Scott W

unread,
Dec 21, 2005, 1:54:05 AM12/21/05
to
Stacey wrote:

> Scott W wrote:
> > There are also a lot of places where the detail seems to be just
gone.
> >
>
> Probably from over compressing it?
>

Could be. I assume the camera puts out both raw and tiffs, niether of
which should show so much lost of detail. Given the rather large size
of the jpeg files I would not expect so much loss in detail from
converting to jgeg.

Scott

0 new messages