The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Mamiya DM22 vs DM33 on Cambo WRS

Pemihan

Well-known member
I currently have a Cambo WRS setup with a Mamiya DM22 (Leaf Aptus II 5).

I'm lusting for more pixels however don't have the funds to spring for the big guns and as such have been contemplating replacing the DM22 with a DM33 (Leaf Aptus II 7) and getting 50% more pixels to play with as I like making big prints.

Anything speaking against using the DM33 with the Cambo set?

Thanks
Peter
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
You'll be fine.

I have the predecessor (Aptus 65M) that has been very successful with my Alpa. No microlens issues, no significant colour cast, no restrictions on lens movements, no problems at all actually.

The only major difference you'll see is that you notice some apparent loss of DoF compared to your II 5. I have a similar set of backs (P25+, Aptus 65, IQ160) and I find that I can easily stop down using the P25+ to f/11 or f/16 and get more clean DoF compared to the same apertures used with the Aptus and particularly the IQ160.
 

Pemihan

Well-known member
Thank you Graham....
How come the DOF changes, the size of the sensor is the same - 36x48mm

One more question, will there be less moiré with the DM33 when compared to the DM22?

Thanks
Peter
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
The sensor physical size is the same but the actual sensor sites are larger with the II 5 vs the II 7. You are comparing a 9 micron pixel vs 7.2 micron pixels which affects the CoC that will apply to DoF calculations.

(Btw, my mistake regarding II 7 & Aptus 65, a closer match would be the II 6 / DM 28 but the same principles still apply).

Regarding moire, yes there will be an improvement in moving to the DM33 vs DM22.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I'd keep your DM22, add a p45+ and have us convert your 22 to infrared.

You'd gain a lot more (long exposure with tr 45, 39mp when desired, infrared with the 22 when desired, two color rendering options - dalsa and kodak) than just adding a dm33.

Of course I'm a freak like that.
 

Pemihan

Well-known member
Thanks again Graham...

Thanks Doug, that would be a dream scenario, but unfortunately not an option for me.
I would have to sell the DM22 in order to afford the DM33 and a P45+ is probably gonna be too long a stretch for me.

That is unless you have a killer offer for me ;-)

Thanks
Peter
 

yaya

Active member
Peter,

the II-7 is also a stop faster than you back which can help in low light conditions as your exposures will be half as long.

Some of the biggest names in architecture photography still use the 33MP backs and unless you really need long exposures (longer than 30 seconds) you will not be disappointed and you will have the same set of featured and the same functionality of the 22MP: Alphanumerical input, accurate histogram with a spot meter, shadow warning, 1:1 focus check, larger battery option, simple connectivity to your copal shutters etc. etc.

Best

Yair
 

Shashin

Well-known member
The DoF is the same between the two backs. DoF is dependent on format size.

There is only a 22% difference in resolving power between a 33MP and 22MP back. Print size is limited in neither back.
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
There is only a 22% difference in resolving power between a 33MP and 22MP back. Print size is limited in either back.
Print area is 50% more though :).

The DoF is the same between the two backs. DoF is dependent on format size.
DOF is a funny topic. It's perfectly possible to be completely correct but still be misleading for new comers.

Many definitions of DOF date from the days of film when a given print size and viewing distance was the normal method of evaluating whether everything in the image was equally sharp.

The new norm is evaluating at 100% on screen to evaluate whether everything is equally sharp. In this method of evaluation the result depends greatly on the resolution of the back. One need only look at a full resolution 80mp raw, and a 1000px web-jpg to see a demonstration of this. They are the same scene with the same lens and same aperture but it's perfectly possible to see everything in the lower-res file as being equally sharp but to notice areas that are distinctly less sharp than others in the full res file.

Whether you technically call this "DOF" or "range of equal apparent sharpness" or "whatever" is not terribly important to me. Regardless of what you call it, it affects the buying process of prospective buyers and influences the photographic decisions of the owners of the equipment.

Of course you know this, I'm just clarifying for those who might confuse semantical correctness for practical advice.

Put differently and avoiding any semantically-touchy terms:
"When using a 33mp back instead of a 22mp back a given aperture will show a smaller distance range of the scene as equally sharp as viewed at 100%." The difference in this regard between 22mp and 33mp is not huge, but it is there. Our customers notice it most when jumping to the highest resolution models (e.g. Credo 80 or IQ180).

Or: "with great (quantities of) pixels comes great responsibility"

Or even more succinctly: "mo pixels mo problems" Not that this has ever stopped me from pursuing more pixels (or more money :ROTFL:).

After all if it was easy to make a 48" print with super sharp detail then everyone could do it, and then where would be the fun in that?
 

Shashin

Well-known member
Print area is 50% more though :).
No it isn't. That is like saying the print area for 400 speed film is less than 100 speed film.



DOF is a funny topic. It's perfectly possible to be completely correct but still be misleading for new comers.

Many definitions of DOF date from the days of film when a given print size and viewing distance was the normal method of evaluating whether everything in the image was equally sharp.
Except for the gratification of a photographer seeing an image at 100% monitor view on his computer, who else is going to? The 100% monitor view is simply not a real world viewing distance. And digital has not redefined DoF nor the concepts behind it. BTW, there is only one definition of DoF, there always has been. Perhaps the real confusion for new comers comes from pixel peeping and the myth that somehow pixel resolution and pixel pitch affect it.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
This is indeed a case of less being more. Less resolution = more apparent DoF on screen at least.

I know that my P25+ for example is a lot more forgiving where DoF is concerned, and I suspect also where diffraction cuts in too. For example, as mentioned I can shoot the P25+ stopped down to f/16 and get great results and more DoF vs feeling the need to shoot at f/11 or f/8 for ultimate sharpness with my IQ160. I leave it to Doug or someone else to explain that one but the reality is there.

As regards pixels, yes they are very very addictive. :D
 

Shashin

Well-known member
This is indeed a case of less being more. Less resolution = more apparent DoF on screen at least.

I know that my P25+ for example is a lot more forgiving where DoF is concerned, and I suspect also where diffraction cuts in too. For example, as mentioned I can shoot the P25+ stopped down to f/16 and get great results and more DoF vs feeling the need to shoot at f/11 or f/8 for ultimate sharpness with my IQ160. I leave it to Doug or someone else to explain that one but the reality is there.

As regards pixels, yes they are very very addictive. :D
Right, because the fewer pixels, the less magnification at 100% monitor view. But not only does that mean an apples to oranges viewing distance comparison (you are not comparing comparable views), but also 100% monitor view is not a real world viewing condition.

Sorry, but you are trying to say an absolute frame of a 1:1 pixel view is meaningful, but it is not. That would be saying that a 100 speed film has less DoF and requires a different minimum aperture than a 400 speed film because it has higher resolution and so therefore you need greater magnification to judge the 100 speed film. I shoot my 645D and p25+ at the same apertures. There is no practical difference in the displayed image.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I knew I shouldn't have used the dreaded three letter forum rat hole keyword D O F ... :banghead:

It never ends well.

You know what I am saying as well as I do, and vice versa. I subscribe to the same practical point of view as Doug. Trust me, I do understand the concept of viewing distance and image size when it comes to print or full screen rendering (vs 100% pixel view). The fact is that people do compare views at 100% pixels and thus the apparent DoF will appear different between these sensors when you do so.
 
The DM33 sure is a sweet spot in that DB line up, you get quite a bit more sensor area for not much more $$. The next step up brings in smaller sensors more densly packed, so it becomes quite a big jump. My choice of back was the largest sensor area I could afford at the time, the MP count matters less than sensor size (within reason of course). I made the same choice again when I upgraded, choosing the IQ160.

I used my DM33 up to ISO800 quite regularly by downsizing the files (by half IIRC). I wonder what c-one 7 makes of those files now, it should be even better. 15 MP ISO800 gives just a little bit more flexibility if you need that.

I can't say how much you'd get over the DM22 but for me the DM33 was a great back.
 

archivue

Active member
I'm shooting architecture with an Aptus 22 and Aptus II 7 (DM33)

The Aptus II 7 is really similar to the 22, except that :
it's one stop faster
it delivers 33mp files
the screen is better but still not really good !
and the GUI is new (not a big deal)

I prefer colors from this two backs than from a P45+

But, i really miss P45+ long exposure capabilities...

Both aptus share the same batteries... good for you !

- you can shoot tethered with a P45+ and last generation retina mac... for the aptus, you need a powered FW repeater...
 

torger

Active member
I've used both 22 and 33 megapixel backs with my tech camera. With 22 megapixel it is hard to see a difference between f/16 and f/11, so I usually do f/16. With the 33 megapixel I do f/11 because I start to see a difference at the pixel level.

So in that sense the "experienced DoF" may become shorter, but there is of course nothing that stops you from using f/16 also on the 33.

I have the Aptus 75 (older version of II 7). The good tech cam integration and color rendition makes it a very good choice I think.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I knew I shouldn't have used the dreaded three letter forum rat hole keyword D O F ... :banghead:

It never ends well.

You know what I am saying as well as I do, and vice versa. I subscribe to the same practical point of view as Doug. Trust me, I do understand the concept of viewing distance and image size when it comes to print or full screen rendering (vs 100% pixel view). The fact is that people do compare views at 100% pixels and thus the apparent DoF will appear different between these sensors when you do so.
I understand this, but that is the fun of the DOF discussions--it should really mean the Discussion Of Futility. What I am finding the the emphasis in photography has been given over to 100% evaluation of the image without understanding its significance. While there is nothing wrong with trying to achieve the best technical results, there is also diminishing returns on that path and at some point it becomes insignificant. I do sympathize with Doug's position--I am sure he has picky customers, and for better or worse, the customer is always right.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
It might be useful to mention, if you do not have enough DoF for your subject, it does not matter how sharp a pixel you are never going to see is, the image will simply be too soft. There is more to images than simply an exercise in maximizing MTF.
 
Top