Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: An interesting publication: Lens Comparison Test-Hasselblad vs. Mamiya  (Read 18714 times)
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2866


WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 09, 2011, 12:29:14 PM »
ReplyReply

You're killing me. I'm on a reduced calorie budget and my next calorie allotment isn't for four more hours.

Mmmmmm cooookies.
Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7862


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 09, 2011, 02:19:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

MTF is the accepted measure for designing and testing lenses. Problem is that a real set of MTF data would be very hard to interpret. What we normally see is MTF data for 10, 20, and 40 cycles per millimeter, but it may also be 10/30, 5/10/20 or 20/40/60. The MTF values normally shown are calculated for infinity but hey could also be measured, normally at infinity. MTFs may be measured with illuminant D65, A or even monochromatic light. A full set of MTF curves would cover different focusing distances and also different amount of defocus.

A lens having "better" MTF at infinity and will normally be a sharper lens than one having "lesser" MTF, and those data have real world relevance.

Most lenses get diffraction limited around f/8 or f/16 anyway. Any lens that needs to be stopped down further may serve better as an exclusive paper weight, unless it is mounted on a large format film camera.

Best regards
Erik



In summary, there is no method to examine the lens, at least as to compare lenses from different manufacturers today. Since there is no authoritative method. The proposal does not make sense to do any tests, because they are not in the slightest way relevant. How to investigate whether the lens has been corrected to better than the other. In addition, manufacturers continue to refine these algorithms. Because of that, even if you managed to get to the method, it is also such a test would not make sense because it would become quickly outdated. Does this make sense?

Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1143


WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 09, 2011, 10:56:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Obviously true, it does make me question though what software like Capture One and Phocus exactly add when they say they perform lens corrections...


Since you asked, in the case of Capture One:

Lens Cast Correction (Auto)
Equalized Scene Illumination (Auto & Manual)
Dust Removal (Auto)
Chromatic Aberration Correction (Auto)
Purple Fringing Correction (Auto & Manual)
Light Falloff Correction (Auto & Manual)
Sharpness Falloff Correction (Auto & Manual)
Vignetting (Manual, Positive & Negative)

Corrections can be saved as custom corrections and can be applied in a batch. Pre-set automatic corrections for many lenses from the below lens families:

Contax 645 AF Lenses
Hasselblad CF and FE Lenses
Hasselblad HC Lenses
Mamiya/Phase One D Lenses
Schneider LS Lenses


Steve Hendrix

Logged

Steve Hendrix
Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
MFDB: Phase One/Leaf-Mamiya/Hasselblad/Leica/Sinar
TechCam: Alpa/Cambo/Arca Swiss/Sinar
Direct: 404.543.8475
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #43 on: May 28, 2012, 02:41:13 PM »
ReplyReply

This lens test is totally bogus... here is what I posted about it on FM forum and soon after it was taken down:

Mamiya vs Hasselblad independent lens test

I saw an "independent" lens test between Hasselblad H lenses and Mamiya lenses on the Mamiya website.

The tester claims that all the Mamiya lenses are better than Hasselblad H lenses.

But I found the test to be a bit flawed to say the least.

First of all it was carried out using a rather vintage piece of equipment:



They are pretty much obsolete and can be bought for peanuts:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pearl-Optical-RPT-15A-Resolution-Power-Test-Projektor-/290567723395?pt=DE_Photographica_Projektoren_Leinw%C3%A4nde&hash=item43a72f9983#ht_1444wt_1139
To start off with it's ancient and is dependent on being manually focused.
It is also a reverse system. It projects the image from behind the lens onto a wall.
The system also has heat problems.
No reputable optical company uses these things.

This is the type of thing that is used these days:



Trioptics Image Master HR.

Modern equipment uses the Modulation Transfer Function method.

The method is far more accurate for measuring resolution in regards to continuous tone images. The antiquated USAF test chart designed in 1951 is simply obsolete.

This is what they used:



A testing screen standard made in 1951.

If you are going to use a target you should at least shoot a more modern target:



The next weird thing is where the lenses came from. Keep in mind it was claimed to be an independent test.

quote from the report:
"The Mamiya lenses were brand new and came off the shelf at the Mamiya warehouse in Elmsford, NY while the Hasselblad H lenses were randomly picked from a New York Rental company."

This is ridiculous as we all know well how rental gear in the photography business in New York gets handled. Just imagine how these lenses have been "cleaned" but who knows how many assistants with everything from a soiled lens cloth to some ones t-shirt. Just think of all the hairspray flying around, smoke, makeup ultra fine powders. Also imagine all the rough handling by rental clients, assistants and deliver staff.
I know that when I rent lenses in New York I make them pull out a few until I find a clean one.

Other issues...
The "readings" were made by someone looking at the projected image on a wall in the dark.
It also seems that no corner resolution was measured...

A much better way to test these lenses would have been to photograph a target like this one:



The same type of back could have been used. There are Phase and leaf backs in both Hasselblad and Mamiya mounts. The tangible photographic results could have been published in the form of downloadable images, rather than using subjective judgements of projected images. Keep in mind that these subjective readings were taken at different times as they only had one Pearl.

What is also interesting is that the "independent tester" works for Mamiya as a marketing consultant.

Here is a quote form the guys linkedin bio:

Quote
Marketing Consultant for Tenba / Cinevate / Mamiya / Leaf
MAC Group
2009 Present (2 years)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardoangel

I was curious to see where this Independent test was published so I looked at the link for the PDF

The link to the PDF document is:
http://bit.ly/ncv33q
but it's actually not the link, but a redirect... back to the Mamiya site.

http://www.mamiya-usa.com/landing/files/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf?utm_source=mamiya-usa.com&utm_medium=hyperlink&utm_campaign=tens-test-report-eduardo

bit.ly is a service for redirecting links.

Well it seems to me that the test is not exactly an independent one, uses a dubious method with vintage testing gear and pitched brand new Mamiya lenses against heavily used rental lenses.
Logged
Kitty
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 28, 2012, 09:18:20 PM »
ReplyReply

It seems the link is dead. It just link to www.mamiyaleaf.com
 Huh
Logged
Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 809


« Reply #45 on: May 28, 2012, 11:50:21 PM »
ReplyReply

No commentary about the tester or the test equipment.

However, I do have to say that I am STUNNED by how sharp my RZ 150mm f/3.5 lens is, even wide open. It's the sharpest RZ lens I own (out of 5), shooting with an Aptus 22. 

That appears to mirror his findings about the 150mm.
Logged

Pingang
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #46 on: May 29, 2012, 01:54:44 AM »
ReplyReply

If the test was carried out fully open at infinity then it doesn't tell us much at all!

Especially as HC lenses are optimised in the nearer field - the field that is most used.

Perhaps we would see somewhat different results if it was repeated at 3-4m at f8?

A comprehensive and fair test would have done so to give us the true impression of how each lens performs at a given set of factors.

Naturally it contradicts our own findings. Wink.

David
true use and popularity of the system says everything.

Pingang
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4200



« Reply #47 on: May 29, 2012, 04:08:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Decent lenses should outresolve the sensor, no?
which would make testcharts pretty much redundant.

Edmund

This lens test is totally bogus... here is what I posted about it on FM forum and soon after it was taken down:

Mamiya vs Hasselblad independent lens test

I saw an "independent" lens test between Hasselblad H lenses and Mamiya lenses on the Mamiya website.

The tester claims that all the Mamiya lenses are better than Hasselblad H lenses.

But I found the test to be a bit flawed to say the least.

First of all it was carried out using a rather vintage piece of equipment:



They are pretty much obsolete and can be bought for peanuts:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pearl-Optical-RPT-15A-Resolution-Power-Test-Projektor-/290567723395?pt=DE_Photographica_Projektoren_Leinw%C3%A4nde&hash=item43a72f9983#ht_1444wt_1139
To start off with it's ancient and is dependent on being manually focused.
It is also a reverse system. It projects the image from behind the lens onto a wall.
The system also has heat problems.
No reputable optical company uses these things.

This is the type of thing that is used these days:



Trioptics Image Master HR.

Modern equipment uses the Modulation Transfer Function method.

The method is far more accurate for measuring resolution in regards to continuous tone images. The antiquated USAF test chart designed in 1951 is simply obsolete.

This is what they used:



A testing screen standard made in 1951.

If you are going to use a target you should at least shoot a more modern target:



The next weird thing is where the lenses came from. Keep in mind it was claimed to be an independent test.

quote from the report:
"The Mamiya lenses were brand new and came off the shelf at the Mamiya warehouse in Elmsford, NY while the Hasselblad H lenses were randomly picked from a New York Rental company."

This is ridiculous as we all know well how rental gear in the photography business in New York gets handled. Just imagine how these lenses have been "cleaned" but who knows how many assistants with everything from a soiled lens cloth to some ones t-shirt. Just think of all the hairspray flying around, smoke, makeup ultra fine powders. Also imagine all the rough handling by rental clients, assistants and deliver staff.
I know that when I rent lenses in New York I make them pull out a few until I find a clean one.

Other issues...
The "readings" were made by someone looking at the projected image on a wall in the dark.
It also seems that no corner resolution was measured...

A much better way to test these lenses would have been to photograph a target like this one:



The same type of back could have been used. There are Phase and leaf backs in both Hasselblad and Mamiya mounts. The tangible photographic results could have been published in the form of downloadable images, rather than using subjective judgements of projected images. Keep in mind that these subjective readings were taken at different times as they only had one Pearl.

What is also interesting is that the "independent tester" works for Mamiya as a marketing consultant.

Here is a quote form the guys linkedin bio:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardoangel

I was curious to see where this Independent test was published so I looked at the link for the PDF

The link to the PDF document is:
http://bit.ly/ncv33q
but it's actually not the link, but a redirect... back to the Mamiya site.

http://www.mamiya-usa.com/landing/files/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf?utm_source=mamiya-usa.com&utm_medium=hyperlink&utm_campaign=tens-test-report-eduardo

bit.ly is a service for redirecting links.

Well it seems to me that the test is not exactly an independent one, uses a dubious method with vintage testing gear and pitched brand new Mamiya lenses against heavily used rental lenses.
Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #48 on: October 16, 2012, 12:10:44 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems the link is dead. It just link to www.mamiyaleaf.com
 Huh

Here is a link to the tester website... maybe he can send you a copy of the full pdf

http://eduardoangel.photoshelter.com/img-show/I0000GOazuNdSZ2E
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7862


WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 16, 2012, 12:18:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

This post is a response to that test: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70675.msg567223#msg567223

Best regards
Erik

Here is a link to the tester website... maybe he can send you a copy of the full pdf

http://eduardoangel.photoshelter.com/img-show/I0000GOazuNdSZ2E
Logged

Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #50 on: October 16, 2012, 04:01:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Decent lenses should outresolve the sensor, no?
which would make testcharts pretty much redundant.

Edmund


Even more...

I trust what I read of multiple respected users of lenses and what I see by searching and viewing many pictures made using the lenses...  Wink

Just one example, the Mamiya 45mm D lens is a very sharp lens... but I found its character boring... I know of no test to summarize the character of a lens...
Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #51 on: October 16, 2012, 08:56:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the Mamiya lenses, particularly the RZ 150 3.5, RZ 110 2.8, the RZ 65 W (not the M/LA but only because it adds too much weight hand held), and the RZ 180 W.  The 50 ULD is nice, but again, too heavy.  The 645 lenses are fine, even the old ones.  They have a different charachter than the RZ lenses, much more contrasty.  The 45, 55, and 80 were my favorites, as well as the 80 1.9. 

My impression has always been that the Mamiya RZ lenses produce a smoother image with color film, really sharp, while Hasselblad V lenses have more bite to them, a crunchier look that is perfect for B&W.  The H lenses are great as well, but I was never wild about them.  I thought they were closer to the Hasselblad V lenses than the Mamiya RZ lenses.

Then there is the Mamiya 7 and it lenses.  Wow. The Mamiya 7 lenses have the look I'm after for both B&W and color.  Smooth and contrasty at the same time, super sharp.  The 65mm, 80mm, 50mm and 43mm are just stunning.

This "test" is just bad marketing.  The problem with advertising and messaging to consumers is that nuance is lost, it gets reductive very quickly.  You get an "independent" test of lenses which claims to show how sharp a lens is, ignoring all other factors of the product look.  To get a nuanced message into the minds of consumers costs money, big money, and none of the camera makers have budgets or even the will to do it right.  I think the old Phase video featuring our very own James Russel is how the makers need to move forward with their messaging, but they need to have a coherent message and campaign, and they need to spend some cash.  The makers should identify the strong points of their lenses and cameras, and show them in operation, used by professionals producing beautiful images, and wrap a narative around it.  There was a Leica video showing a guy shooting street with an M6 and a 28mm.  They interviewed him, interspersed with the images he shot, and you know, they revealed the essential truth of the Leica M system.  Phase/Leaf/Mamiya, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, and Leica with the S should do the same thing.  And F&H, really, F&H could really benefit from a coherent YouTube based campaign for the Hy6.  Does anyone know who handles camera accounts?  Do any of the back makers have an AOR?
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #52 on: October 16, 2012, 11:06:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Indeed the Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp and a terrific camera system. 6x7 in such a small package is highly impressive. A grat joy to use the camera.  Grin

That said, I am no fan of Mamiya, due in contrast to Mamiya 7 I was not fond of the Mamiya 645 system and had ZD camera, AFD, AFDIII and many lenses because they brought me many problems and issues. That said indeed the 80/1.9 in late version was my very favorite Mamiya lens to point I even considered making it into Rollei mount. It was not the sharpest lens but with a wonderful character and 1.9 which for medium format is as wide as gets. The remarkable achievement is that it at same time is as low weight as it is. It was the Mamiya lens that was very difficult to part from, and last one I sold from my Mamiya collection, much also since I had found it as new stock ca. 2007. The problem with the 80/1.9 on the AFDIII was the focus system which had the green confirmation dot display during a focus travel, thus making it difficult to find exact where focus was for such shallow DOF. It was the final along numerous issues with Mamiya system that made me call it quits. Somehow most Japanese products I have come across have frank had some kind of glitch that had been missed from design or quality... Mamiya 7 was a notable exception.

Best regards,
Anders
Logged
gotspeed
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 93


« Reply #53 on: October 16, 2012, 11:32:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't know about their test, but it passes mine. IMHO  Rz 150 f/3.5 bang for the buck is probably not beatable even if the  others are better ( and I'd be damn impressed if that were the case).

Cost wise, buying any other MF system along with the Canons was out of the question for my situation.  So it was going to be Mamiya or nothing.

But i am sure i am preaching to the quire, being newbie here.. This beast of the camera, is just fun to shoot, just sharing a bit of my re-excitement.  It fires without a single battery in it, At 1/400, but still it works.

I found this video today, now that's some fast RZ shooters. DO these guys look like they are hindered by this being all manual system?

http://bcove.me/77hq9ud7

peace,
Mark
« Last Edit: October 16, 2012, 07:52:56 PM by gotspeed » Logged
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1843


« Reply #54 on: October 16, 2012, 01:14:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I only experienced a few problems with the AFd series in my 8 years of owning several bodies.  Never had lens problems.  I had a bad film back once.  I had body that wouldn't talk to the digital mounted on it consistently.  I had shutter issues with all of them, but they had high shot counts.  I never had issues focusing with them, but the longest lens I tended to use was the 80.  The 55 was one of my favorite lenses on color film, the 45 on croped MFD (P30+).  Downside to teh system was, to me, no fulltime MF/AF.  I ended up manually focusing all the time.  The AFd and AFd2 had this horrible lag after you pressed the shutter release which I couldn't stand.  Just made me angry.

Now the RZ, well, I truly believe that the RZ is one of the best systems ever produced.  I wish they would make a ProIII version for digital that had a digital friendly magnified finder, both waistlevel and AE Prism, that would crop and magnify to the chip size, yet still allow you to shoot film using a non-digital finder. 

Indeed the Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp and a terrific camera system. 6x7 in such a small package is highly impressive. A grat joy to use the camera.  Grin

That said, I am no fan of Mamiya, due in contrast to Mamiya 7 I was not fond of the Mamiya 645 system and had ZD camera, AFD, AFDIII and many lenses because they brought me many problems and issues. That said indeed the 80/1.9 in late version was my very favorite Mamiya lens to point I even considered making it into Rollei mount. It was not the sharpest lens but with a wonderful character and 1.9 which for medium format is as wide as gets. The remarkable achievement is that it at same time is as low weight as it is. It was the Mamiya lens that was very difficult to part from, and last one I sold from my Mamiya collection, much also since I had found it as new stock ca. 2007. The problem with the 80/1.9 on the AFDIII was the focus system which had the green confirmation dot display during a focus travel, thus making it difficult to find exact where focus was for such shallow DOF. It was the final along numerous issues with Mamiya system that made me call it quits. Somehow most Japanese products I have come across have frank had some kind of glitch that had been missed from design or quality... Mamiya 7 was a notable exception.

Best regards,
Anders
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #55 on: October 16, 2012, 04:30:29 PM »
ReplyReply

The RZ is a cool camera, really sharp lenses, although heavy system. I purchased a whole RZ system on Ebay some years back for some 2,000 usd plus, including some 5-6 lenses. Not sure if prices are same low now or not, but it was like for free... reason I sold it off was it felt too heavy too me. Actually I did not even expose one frame... yet the RZ WLF was what introduced me to WLFs... I looked at Hassy V because tired of Mamiya 645 system... along came Hy6 with WLF  Grin

A WLF is something I can suggest to try for anyone, both for the vision, and because it is easier to hold a camera by cradling it since one do not need lift the camera to head level.. which takes more muscles Smiley...

Yes, I know... RZ WLF gives a 7x7cm view of a bright focus screen... my Hy6 is only a mere 6x6cm Grin

If the RZs are still as cheap on Ebay, I would recommend to anyone even to buy with just one lens and try out some film, just for the heck of experience, and a learning of a new vision.  Grin
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2436



WWW
« Reply #56 on: October 16, 2012, 05:10:21 PM »
ReplyReply

The AFd and AFd2 had this horrible lag after you pressed the shutter release which I couldn't stand.  Just made me angry


I felt that way about the shutter lag on the DF.  The viewfinder goes black for ever and a day - so long you loose connection with what you are shooting and its long enough before the frame is captured that you can inadvertently move the camera or the subject/model will move after they hear the click of the mirror moving.  Very frustrating.


The RZ is just a fun camera to use.  It's like driving in an old car. You feel and hear everything.    Makes great images too.    I've never used the 7 but one could be in my future since I have started to shoot more film.  Love the images I have been seeing with the 7.

Logged

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

Posts: 7862


WWW
« Reply #57 on: October 16, 2012, 10:55:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I hope it is OK to ask? What film are you shooting and how do you scan? Reason I'm asking is that I tried to kick some life into my Pentax 67 (I have a significant kit), but never got happy with the results.

Best regards
Erik

I felt that way about the shutter lag on the DF.  The viewfinder goes black for ever and a day - so long you loose connection with what you are shooting and its long enough before the frame is captured that you can inadvertently move the camera or the subject/model will move after they hear the click of the mirror moving.  Very frustrating.


The RZ is just a fun camera to use.  It's like driving in an old car. You feel and hear everything.    Makes great images too.    I've never used the 7 but one could be in my future since I have started to shoot more film.  Love the images I have been seeing with the 7.


Logged

FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #58 on: October 16, 2012, 11:40:14 PM »
ReplyReply


Now the RZ, well, I truly believe that the RZ is one of the best systems ever produced.  I wish they would make a ProIII version for digital that had a digital friendly magnified finder, both waistlevel and AE Prism, that would crop and magnify to the chip size, yet still allow you to shoot film using a non-digital finder.  


Yes. It's sad that Mamiya/Phase don't optimize this camera.

On top of what you said I would add a few things.

A shift back so that you can stitch by simply moving the back.

Exposure verification through light bounced off the film for those people shooting film in this digital age.
Nothing too fancy... just confirm an exposure. The Fuji GX680 has it and it's nice to have this confirmation.

I had the Mamiya 6x7 for a few years and liked it very much with the exception of the "coffee grinder"...
that's what I affectionately call the RZ 6x7 motor drive.

As for the lenses... very nice. A bit on the harsh side for shooting transparancys, but actually really well suited to todays negatives.
110mm 2.8 is one of my all time favorite lenses. The 150 3.5 is sweet too. I used the 180mm and 250mm lenses more as they were better focal lengths for beauty, but they did not quite have the look of the 110 or 150.

I buy far prefer the Fuji gx680 lenses, especially in the longer focal lengths. The 110mm 2.8 Mamiya is very close to the 125mm 3.2 or 115 3.2 Fuji, but the tilt shift of the Fuji lenses is a functionality that takes the look much further. But you have to put up with a much heavier camera.

A few shots I've taken with the Mamiya RZ

This is with Tri-x processed aggressively for more grain


180mm



This is Plus-X processed for smooth gentle skin tones


250mm most likely at f8 or 5.6


Plus-x



Oh one last thing. The Mamiya RZ has a lot of rather chunky moving parts. When I shot on a tripod in studio with hot lights
I would get way sharper images on a heavy as hell column studio stand than with a heavy weight regular portable tripod.

Hand held the Mamiya is lovely with the 110mm 2.8, but with the other lenses I had it was really unbalanced.
While the Fuji is bigger and significantly heavier I still prefer it hand held balance wise.. all be it for shorter periods.


One warning with the Mamiya RZ if you are shooting film. The shutter electronics can fail and the camera defaults to a mechanical speed of 1/400th, however is sounds the same as if it were fully working. You can end up shooting and under exposing. The shutter release lock ring does have to be set differently, but it's quite possible to confuse it with simply locked or unlockes shutter release.
That said the shutters are reliable, but something to keep in mind as many will be buying used gear. I have had two lenses fail this way. One was bought new and it failed quite soon. The other was a perfect clean and shiny used one. 

The Fuji to avoid problems like this has a nifty exposure verification system. It measures light bouncing off the film plane during exposure
and sets off an alarm if you are more than a stop and a bit off. Big light flashes and it sounds an alarm buzzer. Same buzzer also warns you when you are on the last frame of the roll.

 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2012, 12:23:26 AM by FredBGG » Logged
FredBGG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1651


« Reply #59 on: October 16, 2012, 11:55:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I felt that way about the shutter lag on the DF.  The viewfinder goes black for ever and a day - so long you loose connection with what you are shooting and its long enough before the frame is captured that you can inadvertently move the camera or the subject/model will move after they hear the click of the mirror moving.  Very frustrating.


The RZ is just a fun camera to use.  It's like driving in an old car. You feel and hear everything.    Makes great images too.    I've never used the 7 but one could be in my future since I have started to shoot more film.  Love the images I have been seeing with the 7.



While I did like the RZ and it served me really well I never went back to it after using the Fuji gx680 for various reasons, but one in particular was because of the difference in the mirror. With the Fuji gx680 the mirror goes down after the shot much quicker and you keep the connection with the subject more.

Also after looking through the Fuji GX680 prism finder .. I just could not go back. The RZ waist level finder is good, but I never liked the Prism finder.

Regarding the Mamiya 7... it's a terrific camera IQ wise.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad