Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33  (Read 11736 times)

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« on: March 04, 2010, 02:37:58 am »

Here http://kenrockwell.com/mamiya/dm33/index.htm

This is same DB as Aptus-II 7 per my understanding (Aptus-II 6 is same but marginally smaller crop of sensor). Or... same sensors as Aptus 75 and Aptus 65, respectively.

Leaf rocks  

Rgds
Anders
Logged

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2010, 05:51:23 am »

I'm kinda surprised how sensible that review was actually. He even came to the same conclusion that I've been saying for ages, 800 iso is more than usable if you know how to handle the file right. The rest of the review is no surprise to anyone who regularly shoots both 35mm and MFD.

Logged

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2010, 05:51:47 am »

Quote from: Anders_HK
Here http://kenrockwell.com/mamiya/dm33/index.htm

This is same DB as Aptus-II 7 per my understanding (Aptus-II 6 is same but marginally smaller crop of sensor). Or... same sensors as Aptus 75 and Aptus 65, respectively.

Leaf rocks  

Rgds
Anders

Hey Anders any bets on how quickly this thread turns into an MF Vs SF (Small Format) "discussion"?
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

billthecat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 113
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2010, 06:14:41 am »

That was a fun review. I'm surprised about what he says about focus accuracy. My AFD2 is very accurate and often I have very thin DOF with the 120 macro even though I have to focus and recompose.

Bill
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2010, 07:30:00 am »

Quote from: yaya
Hey Anders any bets on how quickly this thread turns into an MF Vs SF (Small Format) "discussion"?
ho ho...you are looking for trouble?  
why not: The tiny-microscopic-format-owners ? and the war is declared.

Ps: after reading the Rockwell article, the war is definitely declared. Just a question of posts.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 07:32:26 am by fredjeang »
Logged

pcunite

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 205
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2010, 08:58:33 am »

If anyone thinks that the superior image quality that this camera will produce is going to help you in this new digital imaging landscape then you deserve what happens to you. A technically better file is not going to put food on your table for all but the rarest of cases. Get into the business that requires MFD through your current or improved talent or your never gonna get there anyway.
Logged

Anders_HK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1010
    • andersloof.com
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2010, 10:02:37 am »

Quote from: yaya
Hey Anders any bets on how quickly this thread turns into an MF Vs SF (Small Format) "discussion"?

Haha , Yaya, I figured he hit pretty much head on MF > dslr...  not the opposite. End of any "discussion"   ... and from a guy who has written on all dslr and 35mm last few decades...  

I actually enjoy his website, albeit I do not agree on all.

He does hit spot on what a MFDB is good for and not; which of course includes the image quality. He even hit nail on my impression that while I love image capability from my Aptus, slide film is still amazing and for certain purposes beats digital hands down, e.g. for transient light in landscapes, and magical colors. Yet I am hopeful your Aptus-III line will come to change that?  

The only point I do not agree with on the DM33 frankly is his complaint on the AFD type cameras. They beat any dslr hands down in simplicity (=lesser) of buttons, in some ways frank reminding of the F100 that I grew serious into photography with (and same to F100 I do not use those coded functions except for set up camera to my own default). Indeed due weight it is pain to carry my AFD3 w/Aptus on frequent travels, much so because I carry one or two cameras for film also. But... I do it for one reason only: IMAGE QUALITY.

 

Cheers
Anders
« Last Edit: March 04, 2010, 10:06:25 am by Anders_HK »
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 706
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2010, 11:34:44 pm »

If only Ken knew how to process the files a lot better... his sample file is really atrocious.  He's really missing out on the REAL results that you can achieve from a digital back.
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #8 on: March 05, 2010, 04:08:23 am »

Honestly, I think that Ken has been exagerating putting the word "review". I think his article is more an overview than a proper review.
But there are some interesting points that surprised me.

The thing about Ken Rockwell is that everybody critize him (with some reasons) but everybody look in his site from time to time.
He has become a character. Is he trustable?

So far, there is no reactions war ff vs MFD  to this article like the OP anticipated.
-O, nobody is interested in Ken's article or do not trust him,
-O, is it possible that Rockwell succeded in something that the MFD gurus here have been failing so far: convinced that MFD has better IQ than FF !??  

Fred.
Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2010, 10:44:03 am »

Only a few misguided souls think that the IQ from a 35mm dslr is equal to or better than a MF back.  It seems that those people haven't really used a back, relying instead on the internets.

The argument that has traction is that the latest generation of 35mm dslrs (D3x/1ds3/5D2) have FANTASTIC IQ, great color, are cheaper than the backs, are more usable, and more flexable.  In an age when most images are destined for web, maybe a double truck on a crappy web press, large files aren't necessary.  If you shoot people, the backs are actually too sharp.  

I rent backs when I need them, which is less and less these days.  (I am planning on renting a H4D ASAP.)  For editorial work I shoot film because I want the that 4x5 or 6x7 look.

The above doesn't apply to landscapers or products or buildings shooters.  You guys know what you need. If you shoot for money, and you shoot lifestyloe, well, its hard to argue for the extra IQ a back gives you over a D3x or a 1ds3, or a 5d2 even, when that extra is lost on a page or screen and costs at least $10k more than ds3/d3x/5d2.  Add the simplicity of 35mm for fast breakdowns and set ups, less to go wrong, and a high return on the investment = 35mm dig is the better option.  I'm not saying don't shoot MFDB, do what works for you, I'm just putting the argument in perspective.  That being said, the H4D seems to go a long way in functionality and David Grover's 800 iso shot is impressive.

The one think Ken R. picked up on that sticks in my throat like a chicken bone is that the MF cameras all kind of suck, save for the H4 and the S2.*  Aside from an S2 or an H4, the best solution is the battery hungry Contax (no longer manufactured) or the non "d" version of the RZ with a dead plate adapter from Leaf, or an old 500 series Blad.  So if you don't like the H4 for whatever reason, the S2 is not really an option (silly price, track record of SLLOOWW repairs), you are left with the Mamiya DF or the antique and collectables from KEH:  6008 with a Sinar back, AFi (not manufactired, not widely available in rental), Contax.

This is just my opinion, not a holy war.

* Disclosure:  I have not handled an S2 or an H4.  
Quote from: fredjeang
Honestly, I think that Ken has been exagerating putting the word "review". I think his article is more an overview than a proper review.
But there are some interesting points that surprised me.

The thing about Ken Rockwell is that everybody critize him (with some reasons) but everybody look in his site from time to time.
He has become a character. Is he trustable?

So far, there is no reactions war ff vs MFD  to this article like the OP anticipated.
-O, nobody is interested in Ken's article or do not trust him,
-O, is it possible that Rockwell succeded in something that the MFD gurus here have been failing so far: convinced that MFD has better IQ than FF !??  

Fred.
Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2010, 11:23:50 am »

Quote from: TMARK
Only a few misguided souls think that the IQ from a 35mm dslr is equal to or better than a MF back.  It seems that those people haven't really used a back, relying instead on the internets.




* Disclosure:  I have not handled an S2 or an H4.

Has anyone ever argued that a 35mm digi file is as good as a MF digi file?  I can see an argument that says a 35mm system is better at getting some subjects so therefor produces a better result. Technically a MF file is better, but if the system limits those results then 35 mm is better. As long as you are using the system that gets the results needed then you are using the best system. The disappointing thing about Ken's article is there was not much to disagree with, he's losing his touch. Being able to use lenses from 12mm to 300 mm is the reason I keep telling myself to stick with the Canon.
I sold my first digital camera I had bought new a Kodak SLR/n, it went  on ebay this last week, I got £550. for it, I think I paid £3500 for it new 5 ish years ago, that's one good reason not to spend big on any camera. I got about the same amount for a Corfield W67 film camera, I only paid £350. for it secondhand about the same time as I bought the Kodak.
If I thought a P65+ was it and in ten years time it would still be delivering the quality expected I would have one. For me now there is no war MFD is the better file, no question, I'm just richer using the Canon, I would not make a penny more with £30k of MF.

Kevin.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2010, 11:25:55 am by KevinA »
Logged
Kevin.

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2010, 11:35:14 am »

Quote from: KevinA
Has anyone ever argued that a 35mm digi file is as good as a MF digi file?  I can see an argument that says a 35mm system is better at getting some subjects so therefor produces a better result. Technically a MF file is better, but if the system limits those results then 35 mm is better. As long as you are using the system that gets the results needed then you are using the best system. The disappointing thing about Ken's article is there was not much to disagree with, he's losing his touch. Being able to use lenses from 12mm to 300 mm is the reason I keep telling myself to stick with the Canon.
I sold my first digital camera I had bought new a Kodak SLR/n, it went  on ebay this last week, I got £550. for it, I think I paid £3500 for it new 5 ish years ago, that's one good reason not to spend big on any camera. I got about the same amount for a Corfield W67 film camera, I only paid £350. for it secondhand about the same time as I bought the Kodak.
If I thought a P65+ was it and in ten years time it would still be delivering the quality expected I would have one. For me now there is no war MFD is the better file, no question, I'm just richer using the Canon, I would not make a penny more with £30k of MF.

Kevin.

That is my point exactly.  

Logged

KevinA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 979
    • Tree Without a Bird
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2010, 12:55:48 pm »

Quote from: TMARK
That is my point exactly.

Sorry yes if I had bothered to read it properly I would of realised, my mistake.

Kevin.
Logged
Kevin.

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2010, 03:24:29 pm »

The best thing about MFD for me has always been how well the files hold up under heavy post production, which in my fields of editorial fashion and advertising is usually a big part of the equation.

Logged

TMARK

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1841
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2010, 10:07:49 pm »

Quote from: amsp
The best thing about MFD for me has always been how well the files hold up under heavy post production, which in my fields of editorial fashion and advertising is usually a big part of the equation.

I agree, and when the 1ds2 was the best dslr out there, the backs had a HUGE advantage.  The posterization in light dark transitions in 1ds2 files was horrible.  The ds3/d3x, on the other hand, are pretty good.  Maybe not as good as as a back, but pretty nice.  

If I have a job where the file will be pushed around like the new kid at a Queens high school, I'll shoot my Aptus. In practice, since I'm not shooting much beauty, and rarely ever using strobes any more, I use a dslr or Portra 800.  The ds3 in ambient light makes a really pretty file, especially when put through DPP.  

Still shooting the P25 on an AFd?  I hear people bitching about the P25, and all i can think of is how nice your shots look.  One in particular, a model test, she then landed a contract with Ford.  It was B&W, a tight head and shoulders.  

Logged

siba

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
    • http://www.stefansiba.com
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #15 on: March 05, 2010, 11:23:13 pm »

My only real thought as I read the KR review was "what an ugly camera!"
If I was to splash out 20 grand on something worthwhile, and the options were this mamiya, or a high end DSLR (7000K$) + a really nice car, I would go for the DSLR and really nice car, rather than this ugly camera..........................
because a pro would probably be able to take just as good a photo at the photoshoot with a 1DSmkIII, but would look a lot cooler in the fancy 13K vintage wheels he's arrived in, than the geek with the mamiya.
Of course you can spend the 13K on anything you want. Doesn't have to be a car.
We could start a thread...
Who would like a Mamiya DM33 for 20000$
or a Highest end DSLR and a...... (something worth 13000$)?


to keep it open we should sign the posts;
name + profession + main camera + secondary camera if applicable

Stefan Siba, photographer, Phase one, canon 5D
Logged

Frank Doorhof

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1522
    • http://
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2010, 02:08:20 am »

One could also do his shooting with a 1000D so why even bother with a 5D..... ?

To be honest (and I'm feeling more and more "weird" to be posting here) a "real" pro doesn't care about what other people think or say, he/she will take the shot and most importantly nail the shot, no matter what camera he/she uses.

I choose MF simply because it's a system that gives me a different look, and I use it when I want that look, and I switch to the DSLR when I want that look.
It's a simple as that, I couldn't care less about vintage wheels, I just want to deliver a good shot and I need tools for that.
Cameras are just tools, nothing more.
And some tools work better in certain situations than others.

Horses for courses.


Logged

yaya

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1254
    • http://yayapro.com
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2010, 03:27:55 am »

Quote from: siba
to keep it open we should sign the posts;
name + profession + main camera + secondary camera if applicable

...+ vintage wheels driven if applicable  
Logged
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Phase One - Cultural Heritage
e: ysh@phaseone.com |

amsp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 810
Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2010, 04:00:10 am »

[quote name='TMARK' date='Mar 6 2010, 04:07 AM' post='351219'
Still shooting the P25 on an AFd?  I hear people bitching about the P25, and all i can think of is how nice your shots look.  One in particular, a model test, she then landed a contract with Ford.  It was B&W, a tight head and shoulders.
[/quote]

Yepp, still shooting that old rig, I'll eventually upgrade but I'm no hurry since I'm getting such excellent results. It's all about learning to get the best out of your gear IMO. The girl you're talking about was signed to Elite and has had one hell of a rocket career in the last 2 years, among other things she was in Vogue Italia shot by Steven Meisel, on the cover of Dazed & Confused and Vogue Nippon, and she was one of the campaign girls for PRADA last year.. and the list goes on and on. I love to see a person get the success they deserve, it doesn't happen often enough.

Logged

Zef

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • zefmarkaj.com
Re: Ken R. reviews Mamiya DM33
« Reply #19 on: April 25, 2015, 06:07:43 am »

Hello, why do you recommend the Non "d" version of the RZ67? Thanks
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up