Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: handsdown review Mamiya ZD back  (Read 16698 times)
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2007, 01:48:34 AM »
ReplyReply

will try to do that today but can't promise anything.
Logged
filip baraka
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2007, 10:49:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Is there going to be ZD adapter for Contax maybe?
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #22 on: June 08, 2007, 12:35:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Guys, I have been claiming for years that the D2x was sharper than the 1ds2 and nobody wanted to believe me because of those 4 miserable mP difference...

I hope that these new 5D results will contribute once for all to ancer the idea that MP count means little.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121596\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I too was interested but not very surprised. At least this is more evidence that a small difference like the 14% in linear pixel density (30% in pixel count) between 5D and 1DsMkII is either hard to notice, or easily outweighed by other factors, or both.

I like the naive rule of thumb that the smallest really worthwhile upgrade is about "one stop" or "one standard print size larger at equal PPI", meaning a doubling of pixel count and 1.4x increase in linear pixel density and potential resolution.

Not that a sensor maker should not increase pixel count by a smaller increment when it designs a new sensor to take advantage of incremental technological improvements, just that most of us can safely skip several generations of minor sensor resolution increments between camera upgrades.


P. S. Could and should Canon offer a "1Ds lite", with EOS-1 class body, AF, AE etc. but less expensive 5D class sensor and DSP chips? Could that be done for roughly D2Xs/1DMkIII price level? It could be good for those who do not care about high frame rates or pixel count one-upmanship.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2007, 12:36:57 PM by BJL » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2007, 03:02:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the great mini-review. I wasn't too impressed by the boat shot, as the differences were minute to my eyes. But the detail in the forest crop, and the dynamic range are _very_ impressive. My main complaint with my 30D is the lack of dynamic range, which is a bitch with low-light, long-exposure photography which I do a lot.

Also, the model shots are outstanding!

I was wondering about your (obviously subjective but to my eyes accurate) assessment that the Mamiya has a definite 3D-look to it. I suspect this is due to the shallower DOF of medium format backs, but that's just a (somewhat) educated guess. Perhaps some people with real optics knowledge can shed some light on this?

It'll be very intriguing to see how the forthcoming Canon will fare against the Mamiya.

By the way, how are the ease-of-use, ergonomics and the user interface on the Mamiya? I was complaining about the atrocious Canon UI on another thread, and was wondering about that. Mirror lock-up under 5 menu levels?


In any case, I'm starting to save for a MFDB. I miss my Mamiya 6x6...
Logged

Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2007, 03:09:16 PM »
ReplyReply

You can't compare it to a DSLR, it's a different way of photography.
But I love it
Logged
frankric
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2007, 08:32:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been using Canon DSLR's for the last 4 years - a Canon 5D for the last 18 months or so and have recently bought a ZD (camera - not back). I've just returned from my first shoot with it and my thoughts are very much in line with Frank's.

While away in the bush, I'd noticed the greater depth or '3D' effect while reveiwing images of the same subject taken with the ZD & 5D on my laptop, so was interested to see Frank report the same thing. I don't know what the reason is - I don't think it's due the the shallower DoF, but whatever it is, I like it.

Feppe, there is good and bad in the comparison of usability between the ZD and 5D. Generally the ZD is very easy to use. For Canon users the MLU is brilliant! The buttons are well laid out and logical. Autofocus is fast and very accurate, though I found myself using manual focus most of the time - I generally use AF with the 5D.

But there are some real quirks in the menu and image review area. As Michael pointed out in his review, the menu system is very 80's and could be made to be much better with a bit of expertise. Having said that, once you get used to it it's not hard to find what you're looking for.

As widely reported the review screen is so small as to be almost unusable. Additionally while you get a histogram and flashing overexposure (and underexposure if you want) warning with the initial review image, you cannot get either if you call up an image later from the card. You only get the image itself. Also, if you set the review to display histogram & flashing highlights, the image is so small that you can hardly see the flashing highlights anyway. This area badly needs improvement.

This along with speed of image review and writing to the card are the areas I would like to see improved.

Despite my criticisms, I've absolutely no regrets about having bought the camera.

In addition I was amazed at how easy and cheap it was to assemble a good range of Mamiya lenses. Apart from the 35mm, which is just OK, they're excellent.

Regards

(another) Frank
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8389



WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2007, 12:37:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As widely reported the review screen is so small as to be almost unusable. Additionally while you get a histogram and flashing overexposure (and underexposure if you want) warning with the initial review image, you cannot get either if you call up an image later from the card. You only get the image itself. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Franck,

You might want a try pushing the "info" button while using the joystick in the north-south direction. This will enable you to view an older image on the card in histogram mode.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
frankric
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 52


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2007, 01:17:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You might want a try pushing the "info" button while using the joystick in the north-south direction. This will enable you to view an older image on the card in histogram mode.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121871\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah yes, I missed the bit about the joystick/selection key - should have read the manual more closely....

Thanks Bernard.
Logged

Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2007, 09:14:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I did some 5D profiling tests, and shot some additional check images - and the 5D lent by Canon blew my own 1DsII and 1Ds out of the water with sharpness. I couldn't believe it.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121587\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 5D is an astonishing camera. And used with the mirror lock-up mode (Custom Function 13, I think) it's like using a much higher resolution camera. I only ever use it this way now.

The problem, for my money, with Canon isn't the cameras. It's the glass. The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, bar none. And that includes my Sinar glass. But, the 17-40mm L zoom is junk (it does not deserve the lable 'L' Series) and I can't find a lens for copy work that is the equal of the 90mm. The 50mm macro is OK, but not great.

D.
Logged
KAP
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2007, 10:15:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 5D is an astonishing camera. And used with the mirror lock-up mode (Custom Function 13, I think) it's like using a much higher resolution camera. I only ever use it this way now.

The problem, for my money, with Canon isn't the cameras. It's the glass. The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, bar none. And that includes my Sinar glass. But, the 17-40mm L zoom is junk (it does not deserve the lable 'L' Series) and I can't find a lens for copy work that is the equal of the 90mm. The 50mm macro is OK, but not great.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree about the 17-40mm, buy I find myself using it all the time. I think it's quite a punchy lens for contrast and nice and sharp in the middle. I dare not use it less than about f10. so I find I'm shooting at 400iso. I would love a decent wide zoom, I've yet to investigate the new 16-35mm f2.8 at widish apertures, anyone here know  how it performs.
Because of this I just bought a Linhof 612 for the times I need top quality across the frame corner to corner.

Kevin.

Kevin.
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2007, 12:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Added some ISO400 crops with and without post in my blog review.
And some more highcontrast scenes.
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2007, 01:07:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 90mm TSE is the best glass I have ever owned, bar none. And that includes my Sinar glass.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that. It's not bad but nothing outstanding either:

Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2007, 01:14:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Just curious then..........

What Canon lens(es) between 50-100mm do you consider sharper?

Thanks.

D.
Logged
Ron Steinberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2007, 03:14:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Just curious then..........

What Canon lens(es) between 50-100mm do you consider sharper?

Thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122229\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 100/2.8 macro is very sharp, as is the 50mm macro (although less so). The 135/2 is their sharpest lens.

Ron
Logged
Dinarius
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 710


« Reply #34 on: June 12, 2007, 01:53:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 100/2.8 macro is very sharp, as is the 50mm macro (although less so). The 135/2 is their sharpest lens.

Ron
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122250\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting. I own both of those lenses too. Yes, the 100m is both sharp and sharper than the 50mm, but my TSE 90mm is sharper than both of them. Could be just the day that was in it, of course.

I use the 50mm macro for flat art copy work. Is that my sharpest option?....allowing for convenience of focal length, of course.

Thanks.

D.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4262



« Reply #35 on: June 12, 2007, 05:35:33 AM »
ReplyReply

The old 85/1.2 is very sharp too and has the right look for people photos.

Edmund

Quote
Interesting. I own both of those lenses too. Yes, the 100m is both sharp and sharper than the 50mm, but my TSE 90mm is sharper than both of them. Could be just the day that was in it, of course.

I use the 50mm macro for flat art copy work. Is that my sharpest option?....allowing for convenience of focal length, of course.

Thanks.

D.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122332\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1015


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 12, 2007, 06:15:35 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/535627/53


Have a look at this thread to see 2 pics from Mk3 and 5D.

I see more "3D" from the 5D, but probably is just that the lighting is more contrasty in the 5D's

Perhaps, 3D look is indeed a matter of film/sensor size.

Hah!  There's nothing new under the sun.

Eduardo
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2452



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2007, 09:37:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm a bit surprised to hear that. It's not bad but nothing outstanding either:


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122227\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Graham,
If I didn't have the lens myself, I'd come to the same conclusion as you did. However the TSE 90 is one of my favorite lenses to use. It's very sharp, has good color and contrast and is easy to manual focus. It works well with the 2x extender, macro extensions or a combination of both.  It's just a great lens. When my friend Gib was trying to convince me I should go Leica, he and I had a shoot out - me with my best canon lens at the time the t-se 90 and he with his, the leica 100 mm apo macro.  Well I did go buy a leica DMR and some leica lenses but not because the 90mm was trash - sharpness was similar between the two, but the dyanamic range of the DMR was significantly better than my canon 5D.   Well anyhow I've had a lot of canon glass and the tse 90 is my favorite.  I've seen a lot of canon glass that performs lower than their MTF but this one is definitely better and I don't think its just my copy.
Regards,
Eric
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #38 on: June 13, 2007, 01:49:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Perhaps, 3D look is indeed a matter of film/sensor size.

Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122517\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or perhaps the difference is the lack of colour compression when you move from 8bit per channel (256 shades per channel) to 12bit per channel (4096 shades per channel)

The improvement in '3d' impression (especially on paper) is easy to explain.
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 13, 2007, 03:52:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Added some more views and pictures.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad