Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ZD Review by Michael, Thank You  (Read 10308 times)
stefan marquardt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2007, 01:07:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The issue of sensor-cleaning didn't get a mention that I could see. This is something which detachable backs have in their favour. That and the fact that they can be moved to a view camera setup. No mention of this disadvantage either.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109212\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actualy I now find the ZD solution with the ir-filter seperate from the sensor very good. most of the dirt lands obviously on the filter. so I just take the filter out, clean it and put it back. very practical. no need to clean the actual sensor most of the times. which I find very comforting. and because the dirt on the filter is a bit away from the sensor, it appears much more unfocused/unsharp than when the dirt would sit on the sensor itself. so I dont have to clean so often.

stefan


www stefanmarquardt de
Logged

stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de
architecture & interior photography
www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
rainer_v
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1130


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2007, 02:30:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actualy I now find the ZD solution with the ir-filter seperate from the sensor very good. most of the dirt lands obviously on the filter. so I just take the filter out, clean it and put it back. very practical. no need to clean the actual sensor most of the times. which I find very comforting. and because the dirt on the filter is a bit away from the sensor, it appears much more unfocused/unsharp than when the dirt would sit on the sensor itself. so I dont have to clean so often.

stefan
www stefanmarquardt de
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

all mf sensors have some glass on the sensor. you never clean the sensor surface itself.....
Logged

rainer viertlböck
architecture photographer
munich / germany

www.tangential.de
Ron Steinberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2007, 03:17:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actualy I now find the ZD solution with the ir-filter seperate from the sensor very good. most of the dirt lands obviously on the filter. so I just take the filter out, clean it and put it back. very practical. no need to clean the actual sensor most of the times. which I find very comforting. and because the dirt on the filter is a bit away from the sensor, it appears much more unfocused/unsharp than when the dirt would sit on the sensor itself. so I dont have to clean so often.

stefan
www stefanmarquardt de
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109417\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How do you obtain access to the filter? Are you able to remove it from the plastic housing that is used to insert and remove it from the camera?

Ron
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2007, 09:42:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the poor performance at even moderately high ISOs. At ISO 200, noise is noticeable. ISO 400 is apparently unusable for clean images.

I can't remember the size of this sensor, but if it's double the size of FF 35mm then you're going to use 1 stop smaller aperture for the same DoF as FF 35mm. That means half the shutter speed and in general a greater need for high ISO capability than 35mm DSLRs offer, not less 'high ISO' capability.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7903



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2007, 09:44:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Ray,

Most people use the ZD in studio where light is plenty.

For the landscape guys like me, ISO is not a problem either.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2007, 09:53:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ray,

Most people use the ZD in studio where light is plenty.

For the landscape guys like me, ISO is not a problem either.

Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
Point taken. However, most of your landscape shots seem to be of stationary mountain peaks and rocks. At ISO 100 for no noise, and f22 for good DoF, movement of foliage in the wind, or any movement of wildlife in the scene could be a major problem.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7903



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 29, 2007, 10:05:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bernard,
Point taken. However, most of your landscape shots seem to be of stationary mountain peaks and rocks. At ISO 100 for no noise, and f22 for good DoF, movement of foliage in the wind, or any movement of wildlife in the scene could be a major problem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I won't take blame for the inability of Japanese trees to grow above 2500m!

Just kidding, there are obviously cases where a better high iso helps, but I personnally often use the movement of trees to add a dynamic dimension to images.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
stefan marquardt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2007, 01:37:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How do you obtain access to the filter? Are you able to remove it from the plastic housing that is used to insert and remove it from the camera?

Ron
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Arnau showed me how to do this. works very well!
here is the link:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13990&hl=cleaning+zd]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....&hl=cleaning+zd[/url]

stefan
Logged

stefan marquardt
stefanmarquardt.de
architecture & interior photography
www.stefanmarquardt-architekturbild.de
ivan muller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2007, 12:02:42 PM »
ReplyReply

hi
ZD selling in RSA for same price as Eos 1ds and back for less. Have to agree with everything Michael said. slow buffer rate make it obviously problematic for fashion. A solution would be to buy another ZD to use while the buffer clears. Handy backup at the same time! silkypix great raw converter. great allround camera for studio and location. Only time I found buffer a problem was when I was chasing our new puppy around the lawn but then I suppose a 35mm dslr would have been a better choice! After all is said and done one cannot but agree that at the price and quality the ZD (and Mamiya lenses) is very difficult to ignore. For the rollei lovers I am sure the wait will also be worthwhile and hopefully the price wont be to steep!
Regards Ivan
Logged

Jack Varney
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 392


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2007, 06:01:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps one of you fellows that use the ZD could post some ISO 200 and 400 images for us to decide for ourselves. After all, there are those who have criticized most of the MFDB offerrings at 400. But, I have not been disappointed with ISO 400 performance on Phase backs. So how does the ZD compare?
Logged

Jack Varney
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1103



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2007, 05:14:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the poor performance at even moderately high ISOs. At ISO 200, noise is noticeable. ISO 400 is apparently unusable for clean images.

I can't remember the size of this sensor, but if it's double the size of FF 35mm then you're going to use 1 stop smaller aperture for the same DoF as FF 35mm. That means half the shutter speed and in general a greater need for high ISO capability than 35mm DSLRs offer, not less 'high ISO' capability.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109521\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Just like using Velvia (but with vastly better dynamic range)...  

Quentin
« Last Edit: March 31, 2007, 05:15:14 AM by Quentin » Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8878


« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2007, 09:13:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just like using Velvia (but with vastly better dynamic range)...  

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109845\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Okay! Point taken. You can underexpose a couple of stops at ISO 100 and the shadows are still good. I suspect this is a camera that has no advantage at ISO 400. If you want a fast shutter speed at a particular f/stop, then just underexpose at ISO 100. Right?
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1103



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2007, 02:50:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Okay! Point taken. You can underexpose a couple of stops at ISO 100 and the shadows are still good. I suspect this is a camera that has no advantage at ISO 400. If you want a fast shutter speed at a particular f/stop, then just underexpose at ISO 100. Right?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=109865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well I can't say I have put that to the test, but it would probably work.  I have used 400 ISO and its not that bad, but pretty grainy.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
MichaelEzra
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 652



WWW
« Reply #33 on: April 04, 2007, 08:40:47 AM »
ReplyReply

comparison at various ISO output is illustrated at this URL: http://pixinfo.com/cikkek/mamiya_zd.5
Logged

Nick_T
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 88


« Reply #34 on: April 04, 2007, 02:16:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
comparison at various ISO output is illustrated at this URL: http://pixinfo.com/cikkek/mamiya_zd.5
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=110570\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think this statement from the review really says it all:

" RAW-ból konvertált képeket közöljük, amelyekb?l jól látható, hogy az ISO400 érzékenység még jól használható, legalábbis RAW-ban"


Nick-T

P.S in those examples there is something very bad happening to the in-camera JPGs as compared to the RAWs..
« Last Edit: April 04, 2007, 02:17:16 PM by Nick_T » Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad