Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: handsdown review Mamiya ZD back  (Read 16121 times)
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #40 on: June 13, 2007, 04:12:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Added some more views and pictures.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Frank, this pictures are taken with the camera in your hands am I right? Manual focus, no tripod, no mirror lockup etc...
In this case I think the quality is... wooowww
Logged
Frank Doorhof
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 13, 2007, 04:29:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep correct.
I never use a tripod in the studio and mirror lockup is a problem in the workflow for fashion/glamour (well at least for me).
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2007, 12:45:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Jon:

How would you explain the more 3d look (whatever it is) found usually in bigger fim formats and more rarely seen in 35mm?

Best

Eduardo


Quote
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2007, 06:19:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jon:

How would you explain the more 3d look (whatever it is) found usually in bigger fim formats and more rarely seen in 35mm?

Best

Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Apologies that my original supposition that the sensors in dslr's is only 8bit. This is wrong.

Certainly with 16bit backs the greater range of colours available should result in better tonal gradation, and a better impression to the eye of depth. While the human eye may not be sensitive to the infinite range of colours in any 'scene', the brain is very good at processing a limited range of colours from within the scene, using the centre of the eye.

I thought that the MF pics looked more 3d, partly because of having more colours, but also having better detail resolution IMO, than 35 mm. However, this could be explained also (or in combination) with any filtering (eg AA filtering) carried out by the camera. I understand that many MFDb's don't do this whereas 35mm does.

What do you think? I'm completely open to having any misconceptions corrected; I'm not new to photography, but I am a rank beginner when it comes to digital MF, and I'm trying to get up to speed as fast as possible.

Thanks
Logged

Jon Stewart

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

Posts: 1519


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2007, 11:36:12 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it's mostly the micro detail and sensor size.
Look at HD broadcasts they are also more 3D than normal broadcasts.
The 5D pictures compared to the MF back shots are all muddy in the small details.
Logged
uaiomex
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 14, 2007, 07:50:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Jon,
Thanks for your reply.
Like I pointed in my first post. It could be that the 5D pic is better exposed than that from the M3, but despite the latter one is 14bit, I see more 3D from the the 5D pic.

Actually, the first time I saw the 3D look, was 20 years ago from a fiber based 8X10 b&w picture shot with a Leica. But I had to admit in that time I already heard about this quality from german glass, and you know how the brain can fool you any time, about seeing something you expect or desire to see. The second time I experienced some 3D, was after printing for first time some 11X14" prints from Kodak Panatomic shot with my Nikon.
Later on, I bought my 500Cm and the quality blew me away. After sometime, I got used to the quality and never again thought about 3D. Well, until now.
Personally, I think the 5D is one damn good camera for the money. If it would turn out to be my last camera, I could live with that, but I doubt it. Since I bought my Epson 7600 printer 4 years ago, I love to print 24X30". I think this preference will last the rest of my life. So, I'm here crossing fingers and praying for dbacks to become under my reach. That is, at least a 22mp 36X48 sensor for under 10k usd. The Mamiya dback probably is the best thing that happenned to meduim formar since the world turned digital. Too bad for me, I am a waist level finder guy. So, for me is a CFV2 or something within the next 12 months, or a new Hy6 system in 2, 3 or 4 years.
Best
Eduardo


 
Quote
Apologies that my original supposition that the sensors in dslr's is only 8bit. This is wrong.

Certainly with 16bit backs the greater range of colours available should result in better tonal gradation, and a better impression to the eye of depth. While the human eye may not be sensitive to the infinite range of colours in any 'scene', the brain is very good at processing a limited range of colours from within the scene, using the centre of the eye.

I thought that the MF pics looked more 3d, partly because of having more colours, but also having better detail resolution IMO, than 35 mm. However, this could be explained also (or in combination) with any filtering (eg AA filtering) carried out by the camera. I understand that many MFDb's don't do this whereas 35mm does.

What do you think? I'm completely open to having any misconceptions corrected; I'm not new to photography, but I am a rank beginner when it comes to digital MF, and I'm trying to get up to speed as fast as possible.

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122766\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #46 on: June 14, 2007, 10:45:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Is it just me or...

The files (all be it looking very nice on screen) seem to have very little or no shadow detail or very noisy shadows.

Do I need my eyes tested?  
Logged
bwpuk
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


WWW
« Reply #47 on: June 15, 2007, 03:20:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Is it just me or...

The files (all be it looking very nice on screen) seem to have very little or no shadow detail or very noisy shadows.

Do I need my eyes tested?  





Yes,

Specsavers have got a really good deal going at the moment. Two pairs for the price of one. Hurry hurry.......
« Last Edit: June 15, 2007, 03:22:06 AM by bwpuk » Logged

josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #48 on: June 15, 2007, 03:56:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is it just me or...

The files (all be it looking very nice on screen) seem to have very little or no shadow detail or very noisy shadows.

Do I need my eyes tested?   
Yes,

Specsavers have got a really good deal going at the moment. Two pairs for the price of one. Hurry hurry.......
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ha ha good one.

I am being a bit serious though - does nobody else see this?  Maybe its the JPEG compression at work

@ Frank D..

Wouldn't mind seeing some of the hair detail at 100% crop or some of he hair shadow areas if it is not too much trouble.

Ta!

Jo S.x
Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #49 on: June 15, 2007, 04:16:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
<snip>

...I think the 5D is one damn good camera for the money. If it would turn out to be my last camera, I could live with that, but I doubt it. Since I bought my Epson 7600 printer 4 years ago, I love to print 24X30". I think this preference will last the rest of my life. So, I'm here crossing fingers and praying for dbacks to become under my reach. That is, at least a 22mp 36X48 sensor for under 10k usd. The Mamiya dback probably is the best thing that happenned to meduim formar since the world turned digital.

<snip>

Best
Eduardo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122891\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Eduardo,

I completely agree. 5D can't be beaten (on most criteria) as a 35 mm camera. However it won't satisfy the needs of advertising photography (similar in demand to your very large print production), since photo editors are used to getting big and detailed MF images. Frankly, I don't think there is any strong technical reason why 5D images couldn't be used in this context.

If anyone has experience in using the 5D for Advertising Photos, I'd be delighted to hear your experiences of dealing with photo editors / advertising agencies and such like.

Thanks
Jon
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #50 on: June 15, 2007, 12:46:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ha ha good one.

I am being a bit serious though - does nobody else see this?  Maybe its the JPEG compression at work

@ Frank D..

Wouldn't mind seeing some of the hair detail at 100% crop or some of he hair shadow areas if it is not too much trouble.

Ta!

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

thanks, i thought i was the only one....(see my earlier post in this tread)...

i think everything looks great, but i don't really see the major step up from the 5D....there is not that much more detail and the shadows are just as noisy and muddy....which of course is not bad at all, but no real competition to the 16bit backs.....

i mentioned this before here, a friend of mine shoots with a 5D right now and is looking to get a DMF back...he has all mamiya, so i pointed the ZD out and emailed him a link to this test blog....he said that he could see a definite step up from the 5D in DR, he mentioned the clock tower shot....

either way he is looking at a P21, which is about the same price refurb.....
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad