Digital Mamiya RZ announced

<p>(Maybe this is old news to y'all, but I just heard about it now and didn't see it posted here yet.)</p>

<p>The RZ digital probably won't find its way into most RZ shooters' bags anytime soon, what with its $18,000 price (that's without a lens) and a 1.5 crop factor (e.g., the RZ 50mm lens effectively becomes a 75mm).<br /> <br />But it's a start, right?</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10060301mamiyarz33.asp</p>

<p>That's not out of line for medium format digital, and the RZ system is very popular and there are a lot of lenses out there. I wouldn't be surprised if it caught on. It also has a removable back, and it looks like the body is just a modified RZ67-IID. It would be very easy to go between film and digital.</p>

<p>Bear in mind that this is a MAC group product, with Leaf Aptus II backs relabeled as "Mamiya". The DM33 is the Leaf Aptus II-7: it's not actually a Phase One/Mamiya product. Depending on how P1 decides to dispose of the Leaf assets that they purchased last year, it could go "poof" tomorrow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's not out of line for medium format digital,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, I think $18,000 is totally out of line, once you consider the 1.44x (one full paper size) crop factor. (6x7 is 56x66mm, with an 86.6mm diagonal. The 36x48mm sensor has a 60mm diagonal). Seriously, how is using the same 36x48mm sensor that you could be using on a 645 at all desirable in a larger, slower, heavier body? All the lenses are more retrofocus (bigger, heavier, lower in performance) than 645 lenses. The wide angle choices are especially limited, as the RZ 50mm is a 35mm equivalent. I'd want more for architecture or landscape.</p>

<p>To me, the Aptus II-7 / DM33 on an RZ makes no sense, at all. I think there's only one reason to consider resurrecting the RZ, the Leaf Aptus II-10R (I don't think it has a MAC model number, yet. It looks like the MAC DM56 is actually the Aptus II-10 without the "R"). That spiffy 36x56mm back has a rotating sensor (not the hokey "rotating back" trick you do with an Aptus II-7 / DM33). The 10R was originally intended for the 6x6 Hy6 built in the old Rollie factory and sold by Leaf and Sinar. The 1.30x crop factor is still annoying, but it's closer to the crop you'd get on film shooting verticals and not turning the camera with a 6x7 or 6x6.</p>

<p>The big problem is that an Aptus II-10R is around $30,000, and again, there's that "Leaf may go poof tomorrow" thing to deal with.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, there's only one really affordable, usable MF system out there (and it's barely there), the Pentax 645. Affordable, modern technology, and something no other MF system has, a normal that was actually built to be a normal.</p>

<p>I've been waiting for about 5 years for the Pentax 645D. I even wrote to the company asking (pleading) for them to release it in the U.S.. I'm still waiting.</p>

<p>I've not seen anything from or about the digital medium format Pentax since the highly vaunted announcement. It all sounds great but are there any reviews, any samples? Realistically all this fancy high end medium format digital stuff is way beyond me, though I follow developments the way I used to read about high end stereo and fancy sports cars I can not afford. It all seems to be more trouble than its worth unless one earns one's living at it and it better be a good living to afford such expensive tools. These machines are finicky, limited in lens selection and unless one is making billboard sized prints which will be viewed at 2 foot distances, hard to justify over a 5DMkII, or D3x, or even a lowly D700 which can be had at a fraction of the price. It all sounds like the emperor's new clothes to me.</p>

<p>Let the WHINE over PRICE and CROPPED sensors start again! :) :) :)</p>

<p>(1)As I mentioned on another thread; folks have always whined about the cost of a MF or LF back. It is an 17 year whine; and endless long one.</p>

<p>(2)MF and LF digital backs have never yet been full frame; this goes back 17 years too. Thus one has the endless whine that they are not full frame.</p>

<p>After 17 years of MF and LF digital back useage; the endless whine over price and cropping continues.</p>

<p>*****Folks who need a bulldozer/LF-MF digital back often buy or rent one.</p>

<p>Folks can whine that bulldozers and LF-MF digital backs should be lower in price; but whining does not pay for production and development costs.</p>

<p>*****Wishing and wanting and whining that something is sold below a products cost does not make Producers sell stuff below cost.</p>

<p>OLDER MF WHINES:</p>

<p>RETRO WHINE :<br>

<br /> One has the old 32mm square Blad digital back that was 4 megapixels that cost as much as a new pickup truck or two used ones when Britney, Justin and Christina were kids in the Mickey Mouse Club; stock market was 2000 to 4000ish.<br>

<br /> The APS film system as on drawing board .<br>

<br /> It was a big deal to have Photoshop now on a PC.We had no layers yet ; no history; no ICC profiles.<br /> 16 megs of ram hit 1000 bucks.<br>

<br /> New stuff was stitching by hand; upsizing was old; we had it in Photostyler.<br>

<br /> Transfer files to a print shop was with a BBS or Zip drive by mail/hand.<br>

<br /> A fast modem was 9600; a new screamer a 14.4k which cost 300 bucks.<br>

<br /> There were no CD burners then.<br>

A 800 to 1200 dpi flatbed was a pro device and cost 3000 bucks.<br /> Our ISDN 64k up down line was 500 bucks per month.</p>

<p>****IN dollars adjust for inflation days MF and LF digital backs give one the *lowest cost per megapixel * TODAY historically over the long 17 year whine; and still old tired whine goes on.!!:)</p>

<p>There may never be "affordable" bulldozers and MF-LF backs for dreamers; maybe next year they will be magically cheaper.</p>

<p>This "wish" has gone from 17 of the about 20 years of digital; 85 percent of digital's history.</p>

<p>That is like if homeowners wanted a cheap bulldozer for 85 percent of its 1923 birth; ie about 74 out of 87 years. Imagine if folks whined since 1936 that bulldozers are expensive; that is a lifetime of whining.</p>

<p>MF and LF digital backs may never be low in cost; the chances of a Harry Potter magical drop in pricing dims with time. It still can happen if giant sensors pop up with zero cost and defects like mushrooms; or some magical breakthru that gets mentioned. Like the 100 MPG carb; X-files folks think it is a big conspiracy,</p>

<p>The Leaf AFI II 7 and the AFI 10R share the same internal rotating sensor approach. As to quality - there is no need for anything better than a good Canikon....if that is how you feel, no one can convince you otherwise. I would not look at MFDB as a replacement for that - but rather as a portable 4x5. That's the quality level, and the hassle factor is up there too. Do you need it? No.... does it have a place and a purpose? Yes. Try it, and its hard to look back for the more thoughtful shot. For the snapshot - not really. </p>

<p>Kelly,</p>

<p>Would you say that it is legitimate to WHINE about the small sensor they put into this thing, when "small" is not measured against the maximum format of the (way too big) camera they chose to put this thingy behind, but against the larger sensors already available and in use today?<br />A puny, 2x 35 mm format, 33 MP only thing? Nowadays...? Come on! What are they thinking?!<br />:)</p>

<p>I agree that the MFDB has quality approaching if not surpassing 4x5. I have used 4x5 film for over 30 years and am well aware of the hassle factor. Indeed, age, decreasing physical ability, and willingness to haul heavy loads is one of the many reasons I am a small format digital shooter. I do use tilt shift lenses and am almost always on a tripod, so I am not a spray and pray shooter. But for me, and Geoff Goldberg disagrees, there is a diminishing returns aspect to medium format digital.<br>

I have taken a workshop with Charlie Cramer, and there is no one whose work I respect more (he uses a Phase 65), but I and many others like me cannot justify that kind of expense, regardless of the quality. Charlie also used to do dye transfer, the supreme hassle of traditional printing. His work is exquisite. I do not print billboards, even 16x20 is a large print for me. Where do people put all these 30x40 prints anyway? But even in the heyday of 4x5 film, you could get an old Crown or Calumet, spend a bit extra on a lens (hundreds, not tens of thousands) and compete with the best. Most people in galleries and museums spend a few seconds at best viewing an image. We photographers stick our noses in, really look and still spend a miniscule amount of time, compared to the effort that it takes to make a really fine print, darkroom or digital.<br>

A digital RZ, who'd a thunk?</p>

<p>Geoff, I remember that from the press releases a couple of years ago. But current Leaf literature shows the rotating sensor only on the Aptus II 10R. The 10, 8, 7, 6, and 5 do not show this feature. The Aptus-II 7 that I played with didn't have it. Do you know if Leaf ever actually built any rotating sensor backs other than the 10R?</p>

<p>QGdB, I think they were thinking of price. $18,000 for a body and back is about right for 36x48. 36x56 costs a lot more, closer to $30,000, and I'm not sure what that 41x54mm that Blad is mooting about costs.</p>

<p>Which makes one wonder what ever happened to that 56x66 that the nice folks at RED were talking up.</p>

<p>Joseph - yes they really did make it (I have seen it in person). It works well. Tilt up screen is a nice function, sometimes not so easily worked in hand holding (gets you too far back), but very nice on the tripod. The rotating sensor allows you to be more compositionally focused without removing the back, and is a very good (necessary?) thing to have.<br>

Perhaps you didn't see the Aptus II-7, but rather the Aptus 7. </p>