Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ZD Back review  (Read 5333 times)
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4158



« on: August 09, 2007, 03:01:28 PM »
ReplyReply

There's a ZD back review out there that has a refreshing tone to it.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mamiya_zd/

There's also a comment thread on FM which may be worth following.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/560716

Edmund
« Last Edit: August 09, 2007, 03:03:24 PM by eronald » Logged
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #1 on: August 09, 2007, 04:00:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's a ZD back review out there that has a refreshing tone to it.

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/mamiya_zd/

There's also a comment thread on FM which may be worth following.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/560716

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132382\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's a really *exciting* review - didn't mince his words!
Logged

Jon Stewart

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

Posts: 4158



« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2007, 04:12:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's a really *exciting* review - didn't mince his words!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132392\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem with quick reviews is that you never know  how much is valid criticism because it reflects how a unit will be really used and how much is just a first impression ... Somebody should really compare a ZD back and a Phase or Leaf unit of that generation.

Edmund
Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2007, 04:28:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Same review as noted in an earlier thread:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=18569

The review does little but cover old ground IMO by comparing the ZD to a 5D. No word on buffer and image quality in comparison to a Phase or Leaf back.

Sigh.....
Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
jonstewart
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 435


« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2007, 06:33:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The problem with quick reviews is that you never know  how much is valid criticism because it reflects how a unit will be really used and how much is just a first impression ... Somebody should really compare a ZD back and a Phase or Leaf unit of that generation.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132396\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agree with that, however, first impressions have some intrinsic value. I think it does seem to make clear that a lot more precision is required for exposure and focus to get stunning results from the ZD back, than others (this, of course assumes a reasonable level of competence from the reviewer)

I'd love to see a comparison of the ZD with the current Leaf and Phase one backs. That's my choice when I'm buying soon. Is it a fair comparison? I don't know, but thats the comparison I want to see!
Logged

Jon Stewart

If only life were so simple...
SeanPuckett
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


WWW
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2007, 09:22:44 AM »
ReplyReply

It's a tough call -- the reviewer clearly is coming from a SLR background and wasn't expecting the move to MF to be all that different, just more pixels.  Well, moving out of a Toyota into a Ferrari is more than just horsepower.  Still, many folks are in exactly the same position as him, and this kind of "OMG, having a baby really does change your life!" reaction is good to read and helps lift the false sense of comfort that the similar form factor can instill.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 09:23:15 AM by SeanPuckett » Logged

MarkWelsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 79


« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2007, 11:58:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a tough call -- the reviewer clearly is coming from a SLR background and wasn't expecting the move to MF to be all that different, just more pixels.  Well, moving out of a Toyota into a Ferrari is more than just horsepower.  Still, many folks are in exactly the same position as him, and this kind of "OMG, having a baby really does change your life!" reaction is good to read and helps lift the false sense of comfort that the similar form factor can instill.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=132978\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I hope I made clear in the review that the unexpected differences were nothing to do with the format change: the entirely hoped-for and expected aesthetic benefits of the 48mm chip were the reason for upgrading. I've tried to prime DSLR upgraders about the qualitative, not quantitative, differences: this is not a camera that will suit everyone's way of working – or subject matter.

The ZD back is uniquely positioned in cost terms right now. Financially, it's absurd to compare it with the similarly specified but hugely more expensive P25+. But for anyone interested, here's the review:

“The P25+ is much better at high sensitivities than the ZD; that's why it's three times more expensive. At ISO 50 and 100, they are pretty much identical. This is surprising because the ZD is one third the price. If you want to spend less than $10K on a system, and can work at low ISO, and know how to use a camera, the ZD is capable of unrivalled results. The End.”
« Last Edit: August 13, 2007, 12:48:22 PM by MarkWelsh » Logged
pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2007, 01:50:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I hope I made clear in the review that the unexpected differences were nothing to do with the format change: the entirely hoped-for and expected aesthetic benefits of the 48mm chip were the reason for upgrading. I've tried to prime DSLR upgraders about the qualitative, not quantitative, differences: this is not a camera that will suit everyone's way of working – or subject matter.

The ZD back is uniquely positioned in cost terms right now. Financially, it's absurd to compare it with the similarly specified but hugely more expensive P25+. But for anyone interested, here's the review:

“The P25+ is much better at high sensitivities than the ZD; that's why it's three times more expensive. At ISO 50 and 100, they are pretty much identical. This is surprising because the ZD is one third the price. If you want to spend less than $10K on a system, and can work at low ISO, and know how to use a camera, the ZD is capable of unrivalled results. The End.”
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


i think everybody on the fence wants to hear that the ZD is just as good as the other backs...it is what it is..a slightly cheaper solution to DMF, not really comparable to DSLR....so it sits perfectly alone and should make a lot of people very happy.....
everybody who wants to see a review comparing the ZD to the other backs really knows the results anyway...they are slightly better (some more then others)...this might show up more or less depending on the subject or situation....there are reviews out there...and there is a reason why they are usually compared to the canons....if you want to ultimate, the other backs will give you 5-10% (this is not sientific) better results...at 50-150% higher price....that is the way it is....
with refurb backs coming down in price the line has been blurred and i am sure most people on the fence don't really know how much you can actually get a back for that is slightly better then the ZD and only costs slightly more.....
i disagree with the last statement that the ZD can provide unrivaled results under 10000$....i know that a P20 can provide better results at all ISO if used right....so can a P21 which is only slightly more, but is lightyears ahead in usablity.....
i am not writing this to flame, i am simply reminding that there ARE other options out there that are within reach......
just because the ZD is 22mpix and is full frame does not make it a P25....and why would the only step up from a 5D need to be 22mipx and full frame? a P30 runs circles around the ZD and is not full frame.....a P21 is a LOT bigger then any full frame DSLR.....it is the 16bit that make the difference.....there is a reason canon went to 14bit with teh 1DmkIII and the images look a lot better then the 1DmkII even at the same resolution....talk to someone who owns one and ask them how well the files all of a sudden up-rez to levels that just could not be reached with the 1DmkII.......a well shot P20 file from a good lens can be used for just about any size print.....
Logged

Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2007, 01:58:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
a P30 runs circles around the ZD...i am not writing this to flame"
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=133026\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If it reads like a flame, its a flame...  

Quentin
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad