Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mamiya ZD 22MP Back $ 6995 announced in US  (Read 32977 times)
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2375


« Reply #60 on: June 04, 2007, 12:54:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
apart from the stats, there is a visible difference between 12/14 bit and 14/16 bit on the screen...of course a bad exposure or crazy file tweaking will ruin anything and there are retouchers out there that can make any file look pretty amazing, but there is just more information to start with (with 14/16bit) and i would always rather start with the most information possible.....

what is visible in print is a totally different discussion...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree.

I just don't want to dicuss whether you can see the difference between them. I know I can, so do you but I know a lot of people that do not. Which doesn't mean I can sometimes be mistaken

Anyway, indeed more information to begin with means even when you  lose a lot in the process you still end up with a lot.

BTW, I think then ZD can be a very good thing for MFDB's but even more so for photographers. It will expand the market.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 01:00:15 PM by Dustbak » Logged
hvk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #61 on: June 04, 2007, 02:13:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Marc,

Quote
The zd will give you great portability and the zd back flexibility in terms of being able to use it on both 645afd and view cameras.

I think that is the choice you need to make first otherwise is your photgraphic style is being dictated by your equipment instead of the other way round.

Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are they really that different?  From a portability pov, the weight is most important (at least to me). I often hike for 1-2 weeks with the AFD +  2-4 lenses, a Xpan, a Gitzo tripod etc.

The datasheet says the ZD weighs 1300g. The AFD body weighs around 1000, and the ZD back 450.

The ZD camera is probably more resistant to dust, but OTOH the ZD back is easier to clean in the field. If I run out of batteries in the ZD camera I can continue shooting film with the same body.

My shooting is approx 2/3 landscape and 1/3 architecture, so a back that could mount on a view camera would be an advantage.

Thanks,
Henrik
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 04, 2007, 02:54:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1. Is there an Arca-swiss compatible plate for the ZD camera? I have the Kirk
    L-bracket for my 645AFD and would need something similar if I choose the
    ZD camera route.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Henrik,

Since the ZD slr camera is not available in US perhaps it is unlikely for Kirk or RRS to make an L-bracket. I ended custom make one first time four years back for my F100 w/battery pack and heavy lens (also made it to balance so the camera with heavey lens did not tip forward).

Since this I also custom made generic ones for my D200 and F100 without battery packs. I bought Kirk for my Mamiya 7II which is more elegant in appearance, but a custom made functions well also.

Check here for my original one of how I made it [a href=\"http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&forum=DCForumID15&om=456]http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/d...orumID15&om=456[/url]. I would recommend using 6mm thick aluminum for more sturdy, but make sure the screw to camera has sufficient threading (no triangular plate to brace, since finding place to weld aluminum is not easy). On my last generic ones I use Markins plates (have upgraded ballhead to Markins). Some markins plates have one screw and an additional threaded hole that I placed a second screw in. That holds the plates solid with no flex to my L-bracket.

I hope above helps.

Regards
Anders
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #63 on: June 04, 2007, 03:01:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The datasheet says the ZD weighs 1300g. The AFD body weighs around 1000, and the ZD back 450.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see a far higher weight of 1730g for the 645 AFD II body (no batteries) at Mamiya's website [a href=\"http://www.mamiya.com/]http://www.mamiya.com/[/url]
645 AFDII body without back: 1730g
ZD back: 450g
So a total for 645 AFD II body plus ZD back of 2180g

[Edit: I agree now with 1300g for the ZD camera; the slightly lower 1200g seems to have been an error at DPReview.]
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 03:34:05 PM by BJL » Logged
dankham
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #64 on: June 04, 2007, 03:23:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Expected ship date for ZD back.

I just received this reply about availability of the new mamiya ZD back.

---- Jeff Karp <jeffk@macgroupus.com> wrote:

Hello Dan,

I expect to have finished product within the next 90 days. I believe this is
very conservative and feel that product will be here much sooner, but we are
very strict on quality control of our products and would rather take an
extra month to guarantee performance.
thanks
 
Jeff Karp
 
Mamiya Product Marketing Manager
 
MAC Group
8 Westchester Plaza
Elmsford, NY 10523
914-347-3300 x268
Fax 914-347-3309
 
JeffK@MACgroupUS.com
 
www.Mamiya.com
Logged
hvk
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


WWW
« Reply #65 on: June 04, 2007, 03:47:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I see a far higher weight of 1730g for the 645 AFD II body (no batteries) at Mamiya's website http://www.mamiya.com/
645 AFDII body without back: 1730g
ZD back: 450g
So a total for 645 AFD II body plus ZD back of 2180g

[Edit: I agree now with 1300g for the ZD camera; the slightly lower 1200g seems to have been an error at DPReview.]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The PDF brochure says 1730g for the body with 80mm and film back. The film back is 400g and the 80mm 300g on my kitchen scale. 2.4kg for the lot just doesn't make sense.

As a comparison, the RZ IID with 110mm and back weighs about 2500g.



/Henrik
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #66 on: June 04, 2007, 04:08:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The PDF brochure says 1730g for the body with 80mm and film back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, on the line for the height, width and depth it has the heading
Size(w/ AF 80mm f/2.8 and 120/220 film back)
but the weight of 1730g is given on the following line which just says
Weight  1,730g(w/o battery)(61 ounces)
with no mention of a lens or back being included.

The B&H listing for the 645 AFD II body alone gives this same 1730g weight.

Still, Mamiya sometimes suffers from poor communication skills, so I suppose it could go either way!
« Last Edit: June 04, 2007, 04:08:51 PM by BJL » Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 04, 2007, 07:01:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree.

I just don't want to dicuss whether you can see the difference between them. I know I can, so do you but I know a lot of people that do not. Which doesn't mean I can sometimes be mistaken

Anyway, indeed more information to begin with means even when you  lose a lot in the process you still end up with a lot.

BTW, I think then ZD can be a very good thing for MFDB's but even more so for photographers. It will expand the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This misses the real point about the "muddy shadows" reference to the ZD, which is user error, not a camera limitation.  There are many variables in how any manufacturer sets up their equipment, quite apart from the hardware limitations themselves.  These variables outweigh simplistic assumptions based solely on bit depth.  Hence my earlier reference to 12 bit drum scanners blowing away 16 bit CCD scanners - just as some dslrs clip the highlights more readily than others, and the same chip in two different cameras may give very different results.

You have to look at the whole package.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
digitalguy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #68 on: June 04, 2007, 07:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Expected ship date for ZD back.

I just received this reply about availability of the new mamiya ZD back.

---- Jeff Karp <jeffk@macgroupus.com> wrote:

Hello Dan,

I expect to have finished product within the next 90 days. I believe this is
very conservative and feel that product will be here much sooner, but we are
very strict on quality control of our products and would rather take an
extra month to guarantee performance.
thanks
 
Jeff Karp
 
Mamiya Product Marketing Manager
 
MAC Group
8 Westchester Plaza



Elmsford, NY 10523
914-347-3300 x268
Fax 914-347-3309
 
JeffK@MACgroupUS.com
 
www.Mamiya.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
/
Mmmm. I thought this was a finished product?90 days? I wonder how Leaf is taking this here in the US? They are distibuted by the same company. Could something be happening with Leaf here in the US over the same time period? After all Leaf will have thier own camera body and that conflicts with Mamiya correct?
Just my two cents....
Dg
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 04, 2007, 08:15:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This misses the real point about the "muddy shadows" reference to the ZD, which is user error, not a camera limitation.  There are many variables in how any manufacturer sets up their equipment, quite apart from the hardware limitations themselves.  These variables outweigh simplistic assumptions based solely on bit depth.  Hence my earlier reference to 12 bit drum scanners blowing away 16 bit CCD scanners - just as some dslrs clip the highlights more readily than others, and the same chip in two different cameras may give very different results.

You have to look at the whole package.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....

none of this makes the ZD bad...not at all....but there is a difference and it is up to the individual to judge if that difference is worth the extra money....

my friend called me today again, (i pointed the back out to him and he has been looking at anything he can find about it).....he told me about the buffer and that it can shoot 11 exposures at 1.2 frames/sec and one has to wait 100sec for the buffer to clear after that!!!?? don't know if this is true, i had heard that it is bad but that is completely unuseable for portrait, fashion, editorial.....i mean of course some people shoot 4x5 portrait, but that is a different story......even if the 100sec are wrong and it is actually only 45sec, it is too long.......for someone shooting landscape, or architecture this does not matter at all of course......so it comes down to what you use the back for......and i am sure for a lot of people it is a great solution....
Logged

markhout
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176



WWW
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2007, 09:02:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is interesting - any chance that you might refer us to where you downloaded these raw samples from so that we all can have a look and compare?

Thanks
Logged

pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2007, 09:13:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is interesting - any chance that you might refer us to where you downloaded these raw samples from so that we all can have a look and compare?

Thanks
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


got some from [a href=\"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fraw.fotosite.pl%2Findex-Mamiya_ZD.htm&ei=Z8ZkRsO6JY_agwOVg92SBw&usg=AFQjCNEKceTlN_F8MvL5cdRa68xhLgYlEQ&sig2=IW2m1OTfdQ9lgaviLvQ_Zw]here[/url]......don't have the link to the other site anymore.....found several through google search....
Logged

mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #72 on: June 04, 2007, 10:39:05 PM »
ReplyReply

my friend called me today again, (i pointed the back out to him and he has been looking at anything he can find about it).....he told me about the buffer and that it can shoot 11 exposures at 1.2 frames/sec and one has to wait 100sec for the buffer to clear after that!!!?? don't know if this is true, i had heard that it is bad but that is completely unuseable for portrait, fashion, editorial.....i mean of course some people shoot 4x5 portrait, but that is a different story......even if the 100sec are wrong and it is actually only 45sec, it is too long.......for someone shooting landscape, or architecture this does not matter at all of course......so it comes down to what you use the back for......and i am sure for a lot of people it is a great solution....
Quote

Hi
This does not make sense as I use this camera for portrait sometimes for editorial where I don't have the money to hire a digital back. While you are shooting the camera is processing so most of the time the buffer is never reached. The only way to test the camera is to try it out yourself.

Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #73 on: June 05, 2007, 07:43:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
my friend called me today again, (i pointed the back out to him and he has been looking at anything he can find about it).....he told me about the buffer and that it can shoot 11 exposures at 1.2 frames/sec and one has to wait 100sec for the buffer to clear after that!!!?? don't know if this is true, i had heard that it is bad but that is completely unuseable for portrait, fashion, editorial.....i mean of course some people shoot 4x5 portrait, but that is a different story......even if the 100sec are wrong and it is actually only 45sec, it is too long.......for someone shooting landscape, or architecture this does not matter at all of course......so it comes down to what you use the back for......and i am sure for a lot of people it is a great solution....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

100 seconds divided by 11 exposures = 9 seconds per shot. IOW, if you shoot at a somewhat constant rate of 1 shot every 10 seconds, you'll never run out of buffer. I'm sure there are plenty of portrait/fashion/editorial photogs who'd be fine with that - and quite a few who wouldn't.
Logged

eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4263



« Reply #74 on: June 05, 2007, 08:03:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, this sounds a bit like the original 1Ds, and the 1Ds is usable in fashion, you just need to make sure you time it so you don't hit the buffer. 11 shots is the equivalent of an old 120 film roll !

More annoying is the lag between shots announced a 1s roughly, sometimes you do need to take two or three images in quick succession when you are dealing with a live event.

Edmund

Quote
100 seconds divided by 11 exposures = 9 seconds per shot. IOW, if you shoot at a somewhat constant rate of 1 shot every 10 seconds, you'll never run out of buffer. I'm sure there are plenty of portrait/fashion/editorial photogs who'd be fine with that - and quite a few who wouldn't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 05, 2007, 09:22:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, this sounds a bit like the original 1Ds, and the 1Ds is usable in fashion, you just need to make sure you time it so you don't hit the buffer. 11 shots is the equivalent of an old 120 film roll !

More annoying is the lag between shots announced a 1s roughly, sometimes you do need to take two or three images in quick succession when you are dealing with a live event.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

of course it is doable.....10 years ago anyone would have dreamed of this back, but today.....the game has changed and there are other options......there are some things that make this back come at the price it is.....that's all....
Logged

clawery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #76 on: June 05, 2007, 10:26:18 AM »
ReplyReply

I was able to take a quick peek at a ZD yesterday. We will be getting it back to do some more testing in the next week or so.  We will post our tests once we can give it a good workout.

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
Logged
clawery
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 512



WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 05, 2007, 10:41:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Just a few items that I noticed about the ZD:

1. small rear screen
2. slow image preview
3. 4 pin firewire port (not 6 pin w/ power)
4. buffer hits wall after 10 frames
5. can shoot both RAW / jpeg at the same time
6. reasonable price

Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
Logged
nicolaasdb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 213


WWW
« Reply #78 on: June 05, 2007, 01:55:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think Leaf really cares or worries about the ZD....it is like comparing a VW Jetta with a Mercedes S550.....so even when distributed by the same company who cares. I wouldn't consider the ZD (like I did 3 years ago when it first "came out") I have learned a lot about digital photography since and am glad I went for the Canon Ds1 MII instead of waiting for the ZD and now that I use the canon as a backup and shoot with a Leaf A65....would never look back and eventough I shoot with a mamiya 645AFDII and a 67pro and lenses (and love them over hasselblad) I would not consider the ZD any longer. Just my 2cents
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2007, 05:01:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or try reading the reviews here on LL which do a good job of summing the camera up.  Obviously I own one so I am hardly objective, but then again, some tools take more work than others to get right - I still own a Kodak 14nx, a camera widely derided by many but very capable once you work it out.  A nice even histogram may spell trouble with a ZD file.  But you have to make up your own mind with these things.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad