Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: ZD vrs 1DsMKIII  (Read 3491 times)
mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« on: April 20, 2008, 06:18:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi
Just did a test comparing the 1DsMKIII vrs ZD camera (March 2006 model with no firm ware upgrades ) in a copy mode on text. I did this with a friend as this is his business so we used my cameras & I was curious. The Canon was using the 85 1.2 L (1990 model) & the ZD with a 2 year old 120 macro. Both were shot in there default mode 100 (Canon) & 50 (ZD). The conclusion was the ZD was better by about 10 - 15%. I will get some images posted up by the end of the week. The Canon was @ f 8.0 & the ZD @ f 11.0 ( for depth of field).
Denis
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 05:33:30 PM by mcfoto » Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
Gary Yeowell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 188


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2008, 06:37:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Denis,

Can i ask what RAW processing software was used for each?

I was asking about this comparison a couple of weeks ago, did you get my e-mail i sent to you then?

Since then i have been able to try out the Mamiya ZD camera over a period of a few days against my 1DS3 and have so far come to the conclusion that although its files have a very nice look and feel, the colours are all over the place compared to the Canon, albeit sharper and slightly more detailed. However i did not have access to the Mamiya software and processed them both out in Lightroom.  In terms of actual use, they are light years apart, the Mamiya being unbelievably slow and clunky in operation, but that's another story.

 

Regards,
Gary.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2008, 07:07:09 AM by Gary Yeowell » Logged
Henry Goh
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #2 on: April 20, 2008, 06:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi
Just did a test comparing the 1DsMKIII vrs ZD camera in a copy mode on text. I did this with a friend as this is his business so we used my cameras & I was curious. The Canon was using the 85 1.2 L (1990 model) & the ZD with a 2 year old 120 macro. Both were shot in there default mode 100 (Canon) & 50 (ZD). The conclusion was the ZD was better by about 10 - 15%. I will get some images posted up by the end of the week. The Canon was @ f 8.0 & the ZD @ f 11.0 ( for depth of field).
Denis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Denis,

I don't think the 85mm f/1.2 is a very suitable lens for flat field work at any aperture.
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 20, 2008, 12:28:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Personally I never shoot much text
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2370



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 20, 2008, 12:55:23 PM »
ReplyReply

That's interesting thanks for sharing.   I'm thinking 10-15% difference could be the difference between the 2 lenses not even factoring in sensors.  And while the 85mm f/1.2 is known as a great lens, its not exactly advertised as a lens suitable for copy work or macro.
Logged

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

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 20, 2008, 04:42:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi
The ZD was processed in RD & the Canon in camera raw. My friend did the same test with the canon vrs the Sinar 54 with the same conclusion. He said the edges are cleaner with the ZD &  Sinar, using a different lens would not have closed the gap with the Canon. The 85 1.2 L is an amazing lens. For people work I will continue to use the Canon. I am looking forward to the new pro PO software in which I can shoot tethered with my Canon & ZD. You have to remember that the ZD (36x48 mm chip CCD) vrs Canon ( 24x35 mm cmos ) comes into play here.
Denis
Logged

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

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 20, 2008, 04:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Denis,

Can i ask what RAW processing software was used for each?

I was asking about this comparison a couple of weeks ago, did you get my e-mail i sent to you then?

Since then i have been able to try out the Mamiya ZD camera over a period of a few days against my 1DS3 and have so far come to the conclusion that although its files have a very nice look and feel, the colours are all over the place compared to the Canon, albeit sharper and slightly more detailed. However i did not have access to the Mamiya software and processed them both out in Lightroom.  In terms of actual use, they are light years apart, the Mamiya being unbelievably slow and clunky in operation, but that's another story.

 

Regards,
Gary.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=190748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi
With the ZD use RD, I think it does a great job. LR or camera raw does a good job with better colour.

Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
bryanyc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #7 on: April 21, 2008, 03:52:41 PM »
ReplyReply

two words:  flat field
that is why the mamiya is better at the edges: you are using a flat field macro
as to the rest of it: seems too close to call.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad