Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DR of the ZD back  (Read 3938 times)
A.K.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



WWW
« on: March 22, 2008, 06:03:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Is 14 enough.. or should it be said, 12bit)
Has anybody really felt that the DR is smaller then in case of a 16bit unit?
I am not a full-time photographer and can't afford, say, P25 or Aptus 22, but there is definitely a need for a MFDB. I reckon ZD is the only solution to fit into $8.000-10.000-for-a-back budget...
Logged

Regards,

Andrey Kulpin
www.andreykulpin.com
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2008, 07:54:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is 14 enough.. or should it be said, 12bit)
Has anybody really felt that the DR is smaller then in case of a 16bit unit?
I am not a full-time photographer and can't afford, say, P25 or Aptus 22, but there is definitely a need for a MFDB. I reckon ZD is the only solution to fit into $8.000-10.000-for-a-back budget...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

HI
I have a ZD camera, 5D & 1Ds III. I am shooting more now with the Canon 1Ds III than I used to more for speed & the quality is amazing plus 14 bit. I also shoot clouds for my personal stock. when I had the ZD & 5D the ZD got used 90% of the time because of the greater DR over the 5D. I purchased the ZD camera because of the price difference to the Aptus 22. For larger jobs I rent the Aptus backs. I have really enjoyed using the ZD camera because of size, turns on in 1 sec & quality. The new model of the ZD back will have a buffer rate of 20 shots plus you will be able to use it with the new PO software coming out. If you buy the back you also have the option of renting a better digital when it is needed. If you are on MAC use RD & LR does a great job with the ZD files better than the Mamiya SW. There have been many posts on the ZD & for the price it is hard to beat. At least it is an open system. The ZD also shoots at 1.2 fs which is great for people.
Thanks Denis
Logged

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

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2008, 09:53:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The question is a non-sequitur. Bit depth and DR are independent of each other.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
A.K.
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83



WWW
« Reply #3 on: March 23, 2008, 04:28:30 AM »
ReplyReply

HI
foto-z, sorry, I have expressed myself incorrectly, they are certainly independent but still affect the same thing.

mcfoto, thank you for your reply.
Quote
For larger jobs I rent the Aptus backs.
Could you please describe, why the ZD was not suitable for these jobs? I have used to use a MF film camera thus capture speed is not so critical for me and a small LCD as well. But have you faced those famous monstrous purple noise particles and artifacts in the shadows with the ZD?  And what were the longest exposure time you have had with you camera before severe noise appeared (just based on a statement in an other topic saying that the back is only suitable for short exposures and good light) ?
Logged

Regards,

Andrey Kulpin
www.andreykulpin.com
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 23, 2008, 07:02:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought Capture One 4.1, when available, should work with any ZD file. Anyone know if that is right?

Silkypix makes a great difference to the ZD.  Mamiya's own software is flaky.

The ZD dynamic range is very wide.  I am constantly amazed by how difficult it is to blow out highlights.   No purple snakes for me with the ZD camera

Quentin
« Last Edit: March 23, 2008, 07:03:18 AM by Quentin » Logged

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

Posts: 838


« Reply #5 on: March 23, 2008, 10:54:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought Capture One 4.1, when available, should work with any ZD file. Anyone know if that is right?

Silkypix makes a great difference to the ZD.  Mamiya's own software is flaky.

The ZD dynamic range is very wide.  I am constantly amazed by how difficult it is to blow out highlights.   No purple snakes for me with the ZD camera
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That in itself doesn't mean wide DR.  DR is from the bottom usable signal to the top unclipped signal; how this is distributed relative to metered middle gray depends solely upon how the manufacturer chooses to rate the ISO, and the method of achieving various ISOs.

At least some digital backs give you the same RAW data for all ISOs, and ISO is just a logistic.  These cameras have an extra stop of highlight headroom in the RAW data for every doubling of "ISO".
Logged
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 23, 2008, 01:33:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That in itself doesn't mean wide DR.  DR is from the bottom usable signal to the top unclipped signal; how this is distributed relative to metered middle gray depends solely upon how the manufacturer chooses to rate the ISO, and the method of achieving various ISOs.

At least some digital backs give you the same RAW data for all ISOs, and ISO is just a logistic.  These cameras have an extra stop of highlight headroom in the RAW data for every doubling of "ISO".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183740\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who cares?  It works for me, which is all that matters.

Quentin
Logged

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

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 23, 2008, 04:15:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who cares? It works for me, which is all that matters.

Quentin
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A.K.

In regards to DR, did your read this [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22698&st=0]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....opic=22698&st=0[/url]?

Do bear in mind that the ZD I had was a newer ZD and all newer ZDs seem to have this problem. Older ones like Quentin's sounds like not have same problem. Quentin?

To fully utilize a ZD it should be shot at low ISO, expose to right (effectively ISO50 becoming ISO25), lower than 5 sec exposure, and a DR that not include large areas of both light and dark. At least latter applies for newer ZDs until (& **IF ever**) Mamiya correct the newer ZDs. If they do correct it, then super.

Bit depth is not related to DR. Bit depth is the steps on the stair between the DR points, not how long the stair is (length=DR). As for the DR capability of the ZD compared to my now Aptus 65 there is a HUGE and CLEAR difference. ZD was noisy and indeed colored artifacts as I describe in above link, and that was not only my ZD. It was all ZDs that my agent tested, both back and camera. Read careful what I write there. Personally I would rather go with a 1Ds Mk III because it is much more flexible. However, I do like medium format so I caved in and paid for an Aptus 65. That gives much higher image quality than 1Ds Mk3, but a DSLR is perhaps more flexible. If we compare ISO, I do in extremes also use ISO 800 as useable. The trick is that due to the near 30MPs that the noise is small particles and you print the image not too large. The Aptus 65 has same identical image quality as Aptus 75, but was in my market (Hong Kong) due to its marginally more crop sensor priced slight lower priced than Aptus 22. Perhaps consider. There is a humongos difference in image quality. Aptus 65 & 75 are Leaf newer sensor technology, thus can last you long time. Or take a look at P30 which is PhaseOne's equivalent. As far as build quality of the AFDs, I current have a used AFD and plan to upgrade to AFDIII. I travel worldwide with my gear and the build is perfect fine.

Regards
Anders
« Last Edit: March 23, 2008, 04:23:42 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 23, 2008, 06:59:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A.K.

In regards to DR, did your read this http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....opic=22698&st=0?

Do bear in mind that the ZD I had was a newer ZD and all newer ZDs seem to have this problem. Older ones like Quentin's sounds like not have same problem. Quentin?

To fully utilize a ZD it should be shot at low ISO, expose to right (effectively ISO50 becoming ISO25), lower than 5 sec exposure, and a DR that not include large areas of both light and dark. At least latter applies for newer ZDs until (& **IF ever**) Mamiya correct the newer ZDs. If they do correct it, then super.

Bit depth is not related to DR. Bit depth is the steps on the stair between the DR points, not how long the stair is (length=DR). As for the DR capability of the ZD compared to my now Aptus 65 there is a HUGE and CLEAR difference. ZD was noisy and indeed colored artifacts as I describe in above link, and that was not only my ZD. It was all ZDs that my agent tested, both back and camera. Read careful what I write there. Personally I would rather go with a 1Ds Mk III because it is much more flexible. However, I do like medium format so I caved in and paid for an Aptus 65. That gives much higher image quality than 1Ds Mk3, but a DSLR is perhaps more flexible. If we compare ISO, I do in extremes also use ISO 800 as useable. The trick is that due to the near 30MPs that the noise is small particles and you print the image not too large. The Aptus 65 has same identical image quality as Aptus 75, but was in my market (Hong Kong) due to its marginally more crop sensor priced slight lower priced than Aptus 22. Perhaps consider. There is a humongos difference in image quality. Aptus 65 & 75 are Leaf newer sensor technology, thus can last you long time. Or take a look at P30 which is PhaseOne's equivalent. As far as build quality of the AFDs, I current have a used AFD and plan to upgrade to AFDIII. I travel worldwide with my gear and the build is perfect fine.

Regards
Anders
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183801\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
The ZD & Aptus 22 use the same Dalsa sensor. This sensor will only go to iso 400. Yes Aptus does a better job than the Aptus 22. I think people have to test these backs for themselves.
Logged

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

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 24, 2008, 07:29:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi
The ZD & Aptus 22 use the same Dalsa sensor. This sensor will only go to iso 400. Yes Aptus does a better job than the Aptus 22. I think people have to test these backs for themselves.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183820\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes, same Dalsa 22mp sensor as the Aptus 22, and no, I don't have the issues others have mentioned.  My ZD camera has old firmware, but exposing to the right is the answer to any noise issues in the shadows.  I think every manufacturer sets up their kit differently.  I simply don't see significant differences between my ZD and other 22mp backs at least for my purposes.  But I'm glad I bough in to the Mamiya system, as the upgrade path looks rosy.

Quentin.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2008, 07:30:08 PM by 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