Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Mamiya ZD back tested against Leaf Aptus 22  (Read 42757 times)
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« on: November 23, 2007, 02:05:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I was able to test the Mamiya ZD back alongside a Leaf Aptus 22 today. I set up the camera on a tripod and simply shot a scene in overcast light with a Mamiya 120mm Macro lens. I included a gray card, some black fabric, some objects that show specularity and some fine detailed type.

Tests were at ISO 100 and 200. All images were shot within seconds of each other to prevent a change in lighting conditions.

I felt comparing the ZD back to the Aptus 22 was fair due to both sharing the same Dalsa sensor. No surprise to me that the images are virtually identical with neither looking better or worse than the other. My guess is that if this were a double-blind test no one would be able to consistently tell which file came from which back.

Tif images processed in ACR 4.3 as well as raw files can be downloaded here:

http://www.fourwestweddings.com/test/ZD_Leaf_test.html

Note - the images are full rez.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 03:02:14 PM by bcroslin » Logged

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

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2007, 02:35:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Forgot to mention the processed files have all sharpening and noise reduction turned off. They are processed straight out of the camera.
Logged

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

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2007, 03:01:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's the rez'd down ISO 100 tif files saved as jpg 12. File on the right is the Leaf and the ZD on the left.

(edited because file names were backwards)
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 05:31:01 PM by bcroslin » Logged

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

Posts: 1524


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2007, 03:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

My experience from both is that they are very close but:

The leaf has better color rendition and color uniformatity, try shooting a WHITE piece of paper with both backs full screen, the leaf has better uniformaty.

Also when you closely look at shadows parts the leaf has better detail rendition, this is rather logical because it's a 16 bits device compared to the 12 bits from the ZD.

The reason for me to switch was not the picture quality (when you have a good back (newer versions that is)).

But the tethered issue and the whole interface of the back like buffer, speed etc.

If it's worht the price difference is difficult to say.
It's like with very high end audio for a slight increase in quality be prepared to pay alot of money.

The Leaf is better but not day and night.
For my work the ZD was great but because I do alot darker looking work lately the more detailed shadows pushed me over for sure.

Also the added ISO25 is very handy with the leaf, would not want to miss it now.
Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2007, 03:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's 2 crops from the tif files. Leaf on the right. ZD on the left.

(edited because file names were backwards)
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 05:29:35 PM by bcroslin » Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
favalim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2007, 03:20:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Mamiya ZD a little more noisy in the blue channel.
Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2007, 03:25:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mamiya ZD a little more noisy in the blue channel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155285\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My bad - I had the files named backwards. This is a direct screen shot.

Both are noisy in the blue channel. The noise is a tiny bit smoother in the Leaf file.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 04:07:48 PM by bcroslin » Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
favalim
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 90


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2007, 03:38:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You sure about that?

Leaf on the Left. ZD on the right.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155286\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


In attachement two details from the first images you posted (100 iso), mamiya is clearly more noisy but .. not too much.
Logged
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2007, 03:42:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's 2 crops from the tif files. Leaf on the left. ZD on the right.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155284\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Mamiya ZD shows a little CA in the white text (upper side). The first word "Skin" and a few words after in "poison control". The leaf is clean. Note that I'm not confusing it with the blue and pink dots.
Anyway, image quality is like 100% equal.
Logged
RobertJ
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 601


« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2007, 03:43:51 PM »
ReplyReply

But couldn't you argue that the Leaf files processed in Leaf Capture will be superior in terms of detail and overall image quality compared to ACR, and since you can't process the ZD files in Leaf Capture, the Leaf Aptus wins, hands down?

See: http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipm...af_aptus22.html
Logged
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2007, 03:56:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But couldn't you argue that the Leaf files processed in Leaf Capture will be superior in terms of detail and overall image quality compared to ACR, and since you can't process the ZD files in Leaf Capture, the Leaf Aptus wins, hands down?ht]

Not seeing your logic here. I did process the Leaf files through LC11 and didn't see any difference from what I got from ACR other than the LC11 conversions were flat.
Logged

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

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2007, 04:29:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The leaf has better color rendition and color uniformatity, try shooting a WHITE piece of paper with both backs full screen, the leaf has better uniformaty.

Done. Aptus 22 and ZD back shot on white background on lights. Both ISO 100 with 120mm macro and processed in ACR.

No difference that I can tell.

(EDIT)

I replaced both files with an Aptus 22 file run through LC 11 and a ZD back file run through Silkypix. All noise reduction and sharpening turned off.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 10:33:29 PM by bcroslin » Logged

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

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2007, 04:37:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
Process the ZD files in Raw Developer & the Leaf files to. Also since the Mamiya/Phase announcement the ZD will be supported by C1. With that news you can bypass the Mamiya software. For the money the ZD back is a very good deal & there are a few Mamiya 645 AF cameras out there ready for a digital back.
Logged

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

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2007, 04:38:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not seeing your logic here. I did process the Leaf files through LC11 and didn't see any difference from what I got from ACR other than the LC11 conversions were flat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155299\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bob:

When I downloaded the Aptus 22 ISO 200 raw file, it downloaded as a tiff. I changed the suffix to .mos and then brought that file into LC11. I processed out and compared to the tiff ZD file and the .mef ZD file (which also downloaded as tiff, but I then changed it to .mef).

Here were my findings:

I viewed the ISO 200 ZD files in Photoshop - both the Tif and (ACR-converted) .mef.

I also viewed the Aptus 22 tiff file and the converted .mos (via Camera Raw) in Photoshop.

I also converted the ISO 200 .mos file through LC11.0.1 and brought it into Photoshop.

My results - the Aptus tiff and the ACR conversion both looked slightly noisy with a fair amount of color noise.

Ditto the ZD files, although the ACR conversion, while still a bit noisy, didn't exhibit much color noise at all.

The LC11 converted .mos file, opened up in Photoshop, was way cleaner than any of the other files. There was no comparison.

Something doesn't seem right with your results from the LC11 processed tiff.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 04:39:30 PM by pprdigital » Logged

Steve Hendrix
bcroslin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2007, 04:43:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Something doesn't seem right with your results from the LC11 processed tiff.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not quite sure what you're seeing - I processed everything through ACR 4.3.

I included the raw files so everyone can process them in their flavor of convertor. Process the raws and compare.
Logged

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

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2007, 04:46:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not quite sure what you're seeing - I processed everything through ACR 4.3.

I included the raw files so everyone can process them in their flavor of convertor. Process the raws and compare.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You indicated that you processed files through LC11 and they looked indistinguishable from the ACR conversion. That has not been the result I have seen with these files. The LC11 conversion is way superior to the ACR conversion.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 04:46:56 PM by pprdigital » Logged

Steve Hendrix
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2007, 04:47:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bob:

When I downloaded the Aptus 22 ISO 200 raw file, it downloaded as a tiff. I changed the suffix to .mos and then brought that file into LC11. I processed out and compared to the tiff ZD file and the .mef ZD file (which also downloaded as tiff, but I then changed it to .mef).

Here were my findings:

I viewed the ISO 200 ZD files in Photoshop - both the Tif and (ACR-converted) .mef.

I also viewed the Aptus 22 tiff file and the converted .mos (via Camera Raw) in Photoshop.

I also converted the ISO 200 .mos file through LC11.0.1 and brought it into Photoshop.

My results - the Aptus tiff and the ACR conversion both looked slightly noisy with a fair amount of color noise.

Ditto the ZD files, although the ACR conversion, while still a bit noisy, didn't exhibit much color noise at all.

The LC11 converted .mos file, opened up in Photoshop, was way cleaner than any of the other files. There was no comparison.

Something doesn't seem right with your results from the LC11 processed tiff.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155313\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
Try the ZD files through Raw Developer. You will notice that the in default the on RD the ZD files will be a little flat. There is enough controls to adjust the file before you process a tiff.
Thanks Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2007, 05:11:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Done. Aptus 22 and ZD back shot on white background on lights. Both ISO 100 with 120mm macro and processed in ACR.

No difference that I can tell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I actually see a big difference here. The ZD back has like a green halo/cast at the edges and corners. Specially the left and right sides. Am I the only one seeing this?
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 23, 2007, 05:31:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Essentially identical.  Any differences must be within sample variation.

Quentin
Logged

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

Posts: 324


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2007, 05:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The LC11 conversion is way superior to the ACR conversion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Steve,

I see what you're saying. I went back and did another conversion with LC11 and you are correct - the Leaf file run through LC11 does look better than run through ACR 4.3.

LC11 is definitely a strong selling point for the Aptus and any Leaf product IMO.

It will be interesting to see if the new version of C1 will support the ZD back.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2007, 05:42:05 PM by bcroslin » Logged

Bob Croslin, Photographer
http://www.bobcroslin.com
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad