|
Post by herron on Nov 6, 2005 1:55:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Nov 6, 2005 7:28:28 GMT -5
Hey...just sell off some of your collection, or get a part time job or...no deal, huh!?!?
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
|
Post by herron on Nov 7, 2005 22:29:13 GMT -5
For $12,500 (body only) it could at least accept some of the Mamiya lenses I already have! I'm afraid I would need another full time job for this!
|
|
|
Post by kamera on Nov 8, 2005 9:34:59 GMT -5
Ron,
We jest, but, in reality, what you say is true and can be a deterrent to us expanding.
I know digital is a somewhat different animal, and some manufacturers do make a lot of their more current lenses still able to be used but other times the whole shabang is new.
Yes, they make the specific digital lenses for the sensors, etc. but I feel they are also using a marketing strategy and forcing you to buy a whole new outfit/package.
Ron Head Kalamazoo, MI
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Nov 8, 2005 11:01:02 GMT -5
Ron and Ron, Wow! That's not a camera, that's a self contained electronics lab!! I love it (I do, Ron, Ron, Ron; I do, Ron, Ron ), but I doubt if I'll ever be able to afford one. And Oh Boy! I'd hate to go inside it if it ever went wrong! Peter
|
|
|
Post by herron on Nov 8, 2005 11:40:14 GMT -5
I did have something go wrong on the Canon 300D DSLR I have...and it had to go back to Canon....there was no way I was going to touch all those electronics (turns out it was a bent and broken pin on the CF card connection)! Probably the result of my meathooks forcing the card in place! What I liked about the Canon DSLR was the fact it did accept the previous Canon EOS film lenses, as have all the newer Canon digitals, so far any way. There is a compensation factor, because the sensor was not large enough, but it was as large as most digital sensors at the time (that technology is growing exponentially these days!) I would have bought Mamiya...but they didn't make one at the time...they had adapted their medium-format line to accept (expensive) Leaf® digital backs. And the one they've made now obviously follows the "for the professional" marketing position they have followed since their reorganization in the mid-80s. The only way I will ever afford one is winning that lottery! Guess I should buy a ticket!
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Nov 8, 2005 17:22:16 GMT -5
Good to see, though, that Mamiya is in a healthy state.
|
|
|
Post by litesong on Feb 22, 2006 19:16:10 GMT -5
Late to this thread, but Rachel said Mamiya is healthy... because they introduced a camera!? Well, Konica- Minolta introduced cameras less than a year ago, & now K-M is gone. Things change so so fast. Grace & peace to all readers...litesong
|
|
|
Post by lulalake on Feb 22, 2006 23:41:42 GMT -5
Spend 2000 on a Nikon 9000 scanner and your MFs will kick butt on that digital pixelator.
Cheers
Jules
|
|
|
Post by herron on Feb 23, 2006 14:17:07 GMT -5
litesong: Mamiya is alive and well (as far as I know). They just don't produce things anymore that are likely to be purchased new by your average picture taker...which is what K-M was trying to accomplish. Your average camera collector won't be buying one either (sigh) I've seen the new medium-format Mamiya's with a digital back in action...and they are one sweet piece of equipment! But they are definitely something in the pro arena. Mind you, I'm still partial to film, but if ever there was a digital camera that could completely turn my head, something like this would be it! I'd just have to be one of the 8 meatpackers who just won that $365 million lottery to afford it! ---------- And Jules...I've been in the advertising business for 36 years, and trying to accomplish in film some of the things we can now get done digitally was often awkward and difficult -- and many times looked manipulated. My son shoots high-end architectural interiors digitally (12mp capture), and often makes multiple exposures of the same set-up....one for the outside light coming through the windows (he is always shooting at dawn or dusk), one for the artificial lighting in the room, one for the room itself, one for specific pieces of furniture, artwork, etc. The camera remains stationery on his tripod. The only difference in the exposures is the shutter speed. Digitally, he can then combine those multiple exposures of the same shot so that everything in the shot is perfect...and you cannot see his footsteps in the files! I suppose he could come reasonably close shooting film the same way, and then scanning all the individual exposures and trying to combine those scans digitally -- but why? It takes many extra steps that way, is excruciatingly tedious, and the end result is not as good. For all the things that go on behind the scenes in the advertising & publishing world, I have to give digital the nod. One of the scariest new developments, as far as photographers are concerned, is the ultra rapid advance of CGI - or computer generated imagery. You can now take the engineering math data for a vehicle (or any other product where engineering math data exists) and create images that you would swear are real...right down to the reflections of their surroundings! Things don't look "cartoony" because the are not drawn...they come right from the same data that is used to make precision dies! The great thing for advertisers is you don't have to wait for a vehicle prototype to shoot pictures for ads. It speeds time-to-market enormously! The bad thing for photographers is you don't have to shoot pictures, period! But for pure, "one-shot-is-all-you-get-and-this-by-God-is-what-I-saw" raw image capture, I still like film. It's probably why I have collected so darn many cameras!
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Feb 23, 2006 14:54:54 GMT -5
Well, I like film too, but ... drool...
Gene
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on Feb 23, 2006 18:48:01 GMT -5
I did have something go wrong on the Canon 300D DSLR I have...and it had to go back to Canon....there was no way I was going to touch all those electronics (turns out it was a bent and broken pin on the CF card connection)! Probably the result of my meathooks forcing the card in place! What I liked about the Canon DSLR was the fact it did accept the previous Canon EOS film lenses, as have all the newer Canon digitals, so far any way. There is a compensation factor, because the sensor was not large enough, but it was as large as most digital sensors at the time (that technology is growing exponentially these days!) I would have bought Mamiya...but they didn't make one at the time...they had adapted their medium-format line to accept (expensive) Leaf® digital backs. And the one they've made now obviously follows the "for the professional" marketing position they have followed since their reorganization in the mid-80s. The only way I will ever afford one is winning that lottery! Guess I should buy a ticket! I had the exact same thing happen The day I got my 300D i put the card in and bent a pin and had to send it directly to canon who proceeded to keep it for three weeks. and who knows in 30 years we may all have one of these Mamiyas, assuming they last that long ;D
|
|
|
Post by herron on Feb 23, 2006 22:03:45 GMT -5
I did have something go wrong on the Canon 300D DSLR I have...and it had to go back to Canon....there was no way I was going to touch all those electronics (turns out it was a bent and broken pin on the CF card connection)! Probably the result of my meathooks forcing the card in place! What I liked about the Canon DSLR was the fact it did accept the previous Canon EOS film lenses, as have all the newer Canon digitals, so far any way. There is a compensation factor, because the sensor was not large enough, but it was as large as most digital sensors at the time (that technology is growing exponentially these days!) I would have bought Mamiya...but they didn't make one at the time...they had adapted their medium-format line to accept (expensive) Leaf® digital backs. And the one they've made now obviously follows the "for the professional" marketing position they have followed since their reorganization in the mid-80s. The only way I will ever afford one is winning that lottery! Guess I should buy a ticket! I had the exact same thing happen The day I got my 300D i put the card in and bent a pin and had to send it directly to canon who proceeded to keep it for three weeks. and who knows in 30 years we may all have one of these Mamiyas, assuming they last that long ;D LOL ;D At least I waited a month or two before jamming the thing in the wrong way! In 30 years they may still cost $12,500 for the body...but bread will cost $7,000 a loaf, and the CF card the camera takes will have been obsolete for 15 years, so it all works out!
|
|
|
Post by lulalake on Mar 12, 2006 19:51:21 GMT -5
Hey Ron,
You know I read a great article in, I think, View Camera describing the same procedure on one neg with an 8x10. The felllow was shooting a large church's 100 year annerversary and first took a night shot with all the lights interior blazing, candles etc. then extinguished the lights opened the shutter and took a large flashlight and painted some of the alcoves and dark areas. He closed the shutter and waited till sunrise. When the sun came through and lit all the stained glass, he took a quick shot. It is incredible. At first I thought it was some mega megapixel camera but it wasn't.
Still, I too drool over the new Mamiya, $7000 for the body. I wonder if my 645 lenses will fit. At 7000 it's almost in dreaming range.
Cheers
Jules
|
|
|
Post by herron on Mar 12, 2006 20:31:47 GMT -5
I know what you mean, Jules. I took similar composite shots on film in my 20's, using medium format cameras at weddings. Not what you describe (the wedding would have to last a long time for that) but shooting the couple-at-the-altar scene from the balcony, with the upper portion of the lens blocked........then shooting a large stained glass window on the other side of the church on the same film frame, this time blocking off the lower portion of the lens, so as not to interfere with the altar shot. When it worked, it was great, and the bride & groom usually loved it (if it didn't work, I never showed it, just the conventional altar shot that preceded it ) They would be a lot easier to do...or make do...today, with all the things a digital darkroom can do that a conventional one struggles with! As to that new Mamiya ZD (medium format digital), it also uses the same 645 AF lensmount as the 645AFd body, and is compatible with all 10 Mamiya lenses (including two zooms and the manual-focus 300mm f/2.8 APO lens). So, if you have an investment in Mamiya 645 AF lenses, it could be a lot of fun....assuming, of course, you can find a spare $7,000 for the body (which is the first stumbling block for me)!
|
|