"Mamiya Tempts Photographers With Sample High Res ZD Photos"

http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/...zd-photos.html

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

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/...zd-photos.html

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

Bill

Their server is too slow

wrote:
Bill Hilton wrote:
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/...zd-photos.html

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

Their server is too slow

It was fine when I tried it, but (a) I've got 100 mbps, (b) I tried it early
on, and (c) I'm right next door...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
Bill Hilton wrote:
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/...zd-photos.html

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

Their server is too slow

It was fine when I tried it, but (a) I've got 100 mbps, (b) I tried it early
on, and (c) I'm right next door...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

How sharp was the one of the mountain?

wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
wrote:
Bill Hilton wrote:
http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/...zd-photos.html

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

Their server is too slow

It was fine when I tried it, but (a) I've got 100 mbps, (b) I tried it early
on, and (c) I'm right next door...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

How sharp was the one of the mountain?

I see it now. Not bad. I wonder how big a print it could do and still
look sharp at standard viewing distance.

Just looking at them on the screen, I wasn't that impressed. I would
be interested in seeing an uncompressed sample, and then the same shot
on film.

wrote:
Just looking at them on the screen, I wasn't that impressed. I would
be interested in seeing an uncompressed sample, and then the same shot
on film.

No, I wasn't too impressed if that were the final product but I was
bearing in mind that if this were a full-size shot then it would not be
very detailed and sharp because the net resolution would be a
combination of the sensor resolution and the lens resolution. If it
were cut down to 3/4 width and height, where it should show good
detail, then I imagine it would look good, though I don't have an
editor to handle an image of that size.

This is something people forget about with digital cameras - i.e. that
the full size picture is not capable of being very sharp and detailed
because of this combination of resolutions. But the bigger format the
better, resolution wise, because the combination of resolutions brings
you closer to the sensor resolution.

Actually, now I think about it, it should have been a lot sharper and
more detailed as just explained. I don't think that could beat slide
film from a MF film camera. But then if you tried to convert the slide
film into digital.... well, that's another story.

wrote:
wrote:
Just looking at them on the screen, I wasn't that impressed. I would
be interested in seeing an uncompressed sample, and then the same shot
on film.

No, I wasn't too impressed if that were the final product but I was
bearing in mind that if this were a full-size shot then it would not be
very detailed and sharp because the net resolution would be a
combination of the sensor resolution and the lens resolution. If it
were cut down to 3/4 width and height, where it should show good
detail, then I imagine it would look good, though I don't have an
editor to handle an image of that size.

This is something people forget about with digital cameras - i.e. that
the full size picture is not capable of being very sharp and detailed
because of this combination of resolutions. But the bigger format the
better, resolution wise, because the combination of resolutions brings
you closer to the sensor resolution.

Actually, now I think about it, it should have been a lot sharper and
more detailed as just explained. I don't think that could beat slide
film from a MF film camera. But then if you tried to convert the slide
film into digital.... well, that's another story.

Perhaps I should add that even if I had money to burn, those example
photos would not tempt me to buy that camera. Which is not to say that
better sample photos are not possible.

I've done quite a bit of scanning with the Nikon LS-8000, and some with
the Imacon 848. At the size of these examples, you would see *ALOT*
more detail than from the Mamiya. I wonder how much of the crappiness
is due to JPEG compression? Maybe a RAW file would be dramatically
better? I know very little about digicams.

(my username appears to have switched after subscribing to this group.
= hassy_user)

wrote:

wrote:

David J. Littleboy wrote:

wrote:

Bill Hilton wrote:

http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/...zd-photos.html

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

Their server is too slow

It was fine when I tried it, but (a) I've got 100 mbps, (b) I tried it early
on, and (c) I'm right next door...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

How sharp was the one of the mountain?


I see it now. Not bad. I wonder how big a print it could do and still
look sharp at standard viewing distance.


Doesn't "standard viewing distance" change with the size of the print?