Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: RSPhoto on June 01, 2007, 12:59:04 am
-
I just read this on the main page:
Mamiya Digital has announced the Mamiya ZD 645AFD II Digital System. The System consists of the Mamiya 645AFD II Medium Format Camera with 80mm f/2.8 AF lens and the newly- introduced Mamiya ZD 22 Megapixel Digital Back. The US retail price of the package is $9,999. The ZD back alone, compatible with the Mamiya 645AFD II, 645AFD and RZ67 Pro IID, will have a street price of $6,995. All ZD backs will come bundled with Adobe Lightroom.
Sounds interesting!
-
Hi
That is a great price for a 22mp back. Nice to see LR added as well.
Denis
My Webpage (http://www.montalbetticampbell.com)
-
Hi, are there any reviews yet whether one can expect exactly the same quality from the back as from the ZD SLR? Seeing that they use the same sensor as the digiback manufacturers (it's a 36x48mm Dalsa, right?) one can conclude that they have to cut costs at certain points... What would those points be?
Thanks, bernie
-
I'm impressed, and breathing in a bag as I write this. Would be interesting to see how the competition will respond (both the digital back manufacturers as well as Nikon, Canon).
I need help though on the marketing front. Mamiya are saying that "The Mamiya ZD digital back offers a 36mm x 48mm Dalsa CCD 22 mega pixel image capture sensor that is nearly 6x4.5cm."
NEARLY 6x4.5 cm? I'd think that there's quite a difference between a sensor size of 1728 mm2 (36x48) and 2700mm2 (60x45), i.e. a form factor of 0.64. The new 28mm on the ZD back would then be comparable with a 43mm lens in 6x4.5, which is only a moderate wideangle.
Please tell me I'm wrong...
Thanks!
Mark
-
I am so glad that the ZD and ZD back are going to be available in the US. I am glad that I held onto my Mamiya 645 AFD II for as long as I could, and I am still going to keep my Kodak digital back as a backup to the new ZD back.
I called Mamiya (MAC Group) this morning, and was told by a gentleman named Mark, that the ZD back should be on sale in US by end of June through all its distributors and resellers.
-
FYI, "645" as a size is actually 56mm x 41.5mm, even in the film days.
The Mamiya sensor (48mm x 36mm) represents approximately 1.1x focal length conversion factor, which is why Mamiya is saying "nearly". A well-known manufacturer has recently been taken to task for referring to 49x37 as digital 645 "full frame", so I much prefer Mamiya's more honest "nearly 645"...
Best regards,
Brad
NEARLY 6x4.5 cm? I'd think that there's quite a difference between a sensor size of 1728 mm2 (36x48) and 2700mm2 (60x45), i.e. a form factor of 0.64. The new 28mm on the ZD back would then be comparable with a 43mm lens in 6x4.5, which is only a moderate wideangle.
Please tell me I'm wrong...
Thanks!
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
NEARLY 6x4.5 cm? I'd think that there's quite a difference between a sensor size of 1728 mm2 (36x48) and 2700mm2 (60x45), i.e. a form factor of 0.64. The new 28mm on the ZD back would then be comparable with a 43mm lens in 6x4.5, which is only a moderate wideangle.
Please tell me I'm wrong...
Thanks!
Mark
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120612\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
645 is actually 56mm X 41.5mm (it's for 120 fim) wich gives a ratio of ~1.16 with a 48X36 sensor.
So a 28mm becomes 32.5mm, I hope this makes more sense to you.
Yair
-
645 is actually 56mm X 41.5mm (it's for 120 fim) wich gives a ratio of ~1.16 with a 48X36 sensor.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120620\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Great, thanks much.
-
I noticed no posts at DpReview about Mamiya anouncement. The same at other sites. At LL only this thread. I was expecting a little roar about it. A "quasi 645" sensor dback for under $ 7K deserves more attention, an applause. I know Mamiya is not the best (IQ) there is, but with this price, it's going to sell remarkably. If I had a Mamiya, I'd be already putting my money in advance. With this kind of revenue they should start enjoying, they could improve IQ exponentially.
I think it is really good news, because it is going to push down other dback prices (I hope).
If Mamiya can sell a 37X49 sensor dback at this price, Hasselblad could be pushed to come out with a new CFV with bigger sensor without increasing its price.
It is great news for all MF lovers. The rumors about Canon coming soon with more MP's and possibly 16bit, could launch more desertion from the MF panorama. Mamiya could stop it.
Clap, clap, clap, clap.
Eduardo
Great, thanks much.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120633\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
anyone know if you will be able to mount this mamiya back to a view camera?
thanks
jordan
-
I wish it were true and I hope I'm wrong, but, I don't think it's going to do ANYTHING to the prices for the competition as mamiya is trailing the field by a wide margin. The fact is that mamiya put in the order for these 22mp dalsa chips a LONG time ago, finally they are going to ship a product. Basically they HAVE to get rid of these chips and get some revenue back.
Although I used the ZD a lot (the camera, not the back), it's not really in the same league as a + back from any of the others manufacturers. Adding lightroom was a nice touch though!
-Nick
I think it is really good news, because it is going to push down other dback prices (I hope).
If Mamiya can sell a 37X49 sensor dback at this price, Hasselblad could be pushed to come out with a new CFV with bigger sensor without increasing its price.
It is great news for all MF lovers. The rumors about Canon coming soon with more MP's and possibly 16bit, could launch more desertion from the MF panorama. Mamiya could stop it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I noticed no posts at DpReview about Mamiya anouncement. The same at other sites. At LL only this thread. I was expecting a little roar about it. A "quasi 645" sensor dback for under $ 7K deserves more attention, an applause. I know Mamiya is not the best (IQ) there is, but with this price, it's going to sell remarkably. If I had a Mamiya, I'd be already putting my money in advance. With this kind of revenue they should start enjoying, they could improve IQ exponentially.
Clap, clap, clap, clap.
Eduardo
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=120659\")
All current info is here at the [a href=\"http://mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2281]Mamiya site[/url]
-
Hi
As I read more I think this is really good news. As I own a ZD myself , this Dalsa chip is excellent. This same chip is used in the Aptus 22 & Sinar Emotion 22. The Mamiya lenses are excellent. The new 28mm & 75-150mm will mean that the AFDII/ZD will have an extensive lens range. The addition of LR is bonus. Plus you can use Silky Pix & Raw Developer with ZD files. You are buying into an open platform as you can use Leaf,Sinar, Phase & Imacon D backs on the AFDII body. I have looked at the specs & they seem the same as my ZD. What I did notice is that the interface of the back is different to the first prototype.
Denis
My Webpage (http://www.montalbetticampbell.com)
-
I did notice that the Mamiya ZD body is not listed on the USA site anymore
do we think the street pricing will be the same as listed in the PR for ZD back/system?
-
I just went to the Mamiya site and the ZD back will sell for $6,999 and work with the RZ Pro IID with out cables and of course pair with the full frame 28mm on the 645 AFD II.
It seems like Mamiya is on the way back. A 22mp digital back for $7k is insane. If the files are working and look good at 400 then they will be selling like hot cakes again.
I assume it has the same 22mp chip that the Leaf A22 at a third of cost.
Plus, outstanding service and support in the US.
Seems pretty impressive.
Does anyone know if they will come in different mounts or only Mamiya?
As people have said. Interesting times!
-
maybe KG will make a plate. I bet they would if there is demand.
most said the ZD body wasnt usable above 200ISO, but maybe it's been
reworked?
-
Well, for Jordan, myself, and I'm sure many others,
The big haunting question is: Will the Mamiya ZD DMFB work on a view camera (or even better, a camera body such as the Cambo Wide DS) for more flexible architectural/landscape shooting and stitching ability?
My gut feeling is NO...but I hope someone will prove me wrong on this issue.
I base this on the fact that there has been nothing infowise on a shutter release feature that I can find mentioned in any literature on the current ZD model promoting this ability.
I do see history repeating itself here, since the original Kodak DSC Pro Back did not have this feature either, but fortunately it was upgraded one year later with the "Plus" model's "external shutter release port", which then allowed those DMFB's use with a view camera.
Curiously, when the final slimmer and lighter Kodak 645 DSC Pro Back models were later introduced only for the Hasselblad H1, Contax, and Mamiya AF camera bodies, the "port" was missing again.
I feel this new ZD Back is just a long overdue upgrade of the last Kodak 645 DMFB Mamiya version, and the ZD model finally fills the gaping hole Kodak left behind.
This is a well positioned price for a new model specific 14/12 bit DMFB in comparision with the rest of the industry's 16/14 bit offerings.
And this wonderful price point for the ZD back (Lower than I think all of us expected) also follows an historically similar price point pattern with the older 645 Kodak DMFB's as well. Those Backs too, as you may recall, were offered at much lower price points compared to the rest of the MFDB competition of that time period.
I agree with Nick that the price points of competing product lines will probably see little movement since Phase, Leaf, and Hasselblad offer much better feature sets compared to the ZD back in its present form.
But wow, those 22 megapixels, with that 36mm x 48mm image size, for those who own Mamiya AFD's, for only $6999, is still verrrry nice! And with the new 28mm lens, oh boy!!!
And the "external shutter release" feature? Well, we will just have to wait and see.
Indeed, as RicAgu remarked, we live in interesting times............
Joe Bossuyt
-
Well, for Jordan, myself, and I'm sure many others,
The big haunting question is: Will the Mamiya ZD DMFB work on a view camera (or even better, a camera body such as the Cambo Wide DS) for more flexible architectural/landscape shooting and stitching ability?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=120691\")
Not exactly View cameras but some third party manufacturers like ALPA cameras have already announced support for the ZD back (ALPA 12TC, ALPA 12WA, ALPA 12WA)
[a href=\"http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=news&detailpage=33]http://www.alpa.ch/index.php?path=news&detailpage=33[/url]
Cambo did also show support when the ZD camera was launched,
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/s...et/Item704.html (http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item704.html)
they should do the same with the back now, maybe I'm wrong.
Don't lose you hope.
Arnau Anglada
-
I just went to the Mamiya site and the ZD back will sell for $6,999 and work with the RZ Pro IID with out cables and of course pair with the full frame 28mm on the 645 AFD II.
It seems like Mamiya is on the way back. A 22mp digital back for $7k is insane. If the files are working and look good at 400 then they will be selling like hot cakes again.
I assume it has the same 22mp chip that the Leaf A22 at a third of cost.
Plus, outstanding service and support in the US.
Seems pretty impressive.
Does anyone know if they will come in different mounts or only Mamiya?
As people have said. Interesting times!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
this is great news, but i am afraid this will put more pressure on canon then MF makers....the ZD back is 12bit, the buffer is a major problem when shooting people and 400 is very noisy....that said: it is always great to see prices come down and this is a great deal....there are several tests online and quite a few people here already shoot with the ZD....
just like the ZD this is a bit better then the 1dsmkII (at 100iso) but much slower and a bit below 16bit MF backs (which will provide cleaner transitions, better color and cleaner files).....
but the idea that with a 5D and a 645/ZD one can now get 2 kits covering pretty much everything under 20.000 is very tempting.....
i would still get the P21.....
-
Emailed a letter to Jeff Karp at MAC concerning the possible compatibility of the new ZD Back working with view camera type setups.
Awaiting a reply...probably on Tuesday.
Joe Bossuyt
-
Observations per www.mamiya.com (USA site) is that the ZD slr is not listed. However by downloading the brochure for ZD Back also the ZD slr is in it. Specs for ZD slr and ZD back seem listed there as identical except that the frame rate is 1.5fps for the ZDslr and lower 1.2fps for the back. The same 1.8" small display are on both.
The ZD slr has been out on the world market for well over a year. It would be interesting if they made an upgrade to both the ZD slr and ZD back by increasing ISO and greatly improving on high ISO low noise. Also larger display of course... and lower price on the ZD slr... perhaps a package with lenses?
The ZD slr camera seem excellent except for above. Personally I am seeking to upgrade to around 20MP camera because of my interest in large prints. My eyes are looking out for Canon and Nikon coming offerings but indeed an upgrade of the ZD slr would be very very tempting. The ZD slr camera appear like a superb solution compared to all high tech wiz bang of modern slrs that I really not use much for my shooting preferences (multiple focus points, focus tracking etc...). Seems the ZD slr also offer high DR per reading of it on the net, perhaps an upper hand to Canon and Nikon coming offerings??
Does anyone have a clue of possible image quality updates to the ZD back and slr?
Much thanks for any comments.
Regards
Anders
(I shoot Nikon D200 but just got into MF with a Mamiya 7II)
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=709640 (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=709640)
-
just like the ZD this is a bit better then the 1dsmkII (at 100iso) but much slower and a bit below 16bit MF backs (which will provide cleaner transitions, better color and cleaner files).....
but the idea that with a 5D and a 645/ZD one can now get 2 kits covering pretty much everything under 20.000 is very tempting.....
i would still get the P21.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We've been through this before, and I still haven't seen you providing any evidence that the DR of the ZD is any worse than the DR of the equivalent Leaf and Phase back, or that it has worse transitions, or worse colors.
Since what you write appears to be mere assumptions based on specs, it might be good to state this clearly in your posts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi
When the ZD camera was released the speed had improved from 1.5 to 1.2 f/s. To me it is one of those stories where Mamiya is not great with PR. For most camera manufacturers they would be blowing there horn but not Mamiya they are modest.( timing or new owners?) Again for $6995.00 USD for a 22 mp, 1.2 f/s, jpg... this is a hell of a deal! This is a different league to the Kodax back, I know because I used one. I read MR review of the ZD camera today again & it is worth reading again, a very fair review. With the MAC support this is good news for MFD!
Denis
-
Hi,
I find this announcement extremely exciting. I have been considering backs on the market for some time now, and it has simply not been an option to spring for any at the exorbitant prices that they command. I have tested out a ZD SLR on several occasions, and compared the files with what I got off a Sinar 54M, and could not find any significant differences. I have used the Sinar backs extensively for the past 3 years, though I digress...
As a Mamiya 645AFD owner, this is what I have been waiting and hoping for. I had actually expected that it would come in around $11-12K when announced, so I am over the moon with the price point. I was actually tossing around this week whether I should hire a Canon 1DS Mark II for a job I have reproducing some art works for a book, as it has been getting increasingly difficult to rent digi backs for the Mamiya platform, as some many rental centres have gone over to Blad in Australia. I need a back for jobs that can go on for weeks (rather than a few days) at a stretch, and the starting cost on renting a Phase or Sinar here is AU$1,700 plus per week. Clients tend to balk a little at paying rentals like these in my line of work.
We are suddenly in a whole new ballpark.
Nick
-
after two years of announcements and excitements about the prices of the mamiya backs i just wait to see one..... or to see anyone who has got one.
[/quote]
-
We've been through this before, and I still haven't seen you providing any evidence that the DR of the ZD is any worse than the DR of the equivalent Leaf and Phase back, or that it has worse transitions, or worse colors.
Since what you write appears to be mere assumptions based on specs, it might be good to state this clearly in your posts.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes we have been trough this before....i have seen raw files and they are somewhere in between DSLR and DMF...with the actual announcement and the price this is great news....i have said it before, if they can keep the price more aligned with canon, they will have a real chance....and that is really all i meant: this is direct competition to canon for someone looking for file quality/resolution at 100iso....actually it beats canon, also on price.....i honestly doubt that the "new/next/dsmkIII" will be better then this back at 100iso....it will shoot faster/higher,.....but at 100 the ZD is the clear price/performance winner right now.....
i emailed the announcement to a friend of mine yesterday, he shoots mamiya (for now he rents phase when he needs a back), has a 5D and is in the market for a DMF....i told him to take a good hard look at this solution.....he wrote me an email this morning (after spending all night comparing, reading tests, looking at his old files, his 5D files) and he just feels that the ZD might be an "inbetween" step that he might regret a year from today......
not only about file quality, but also about the future (it did take mamiya 3? years to release this thing in the US!), the money he would be saving is not that important as a longterm commitment.....plus he has gotten used to shooting his 5D at 400-800iso and the phase backs handle this easily as well......
with all this in mind: if i was looking to get into digital today i would probably buy the ZD...but i shoot studio at 100....most of the time....but i have a P30 and i would not give up its advantages and knowing how the phase handles and knowing the files (with my experience) i would spend the extra money and get a P21.....for my work it makes much more sense....
i have to add something to this to put things into perspective: phase is charging me 6000 (becuase i signed up early, otherwise 8000!) to upgrade my P30 to a P30+......i haven't seen any P30+ files and am not sure how much the P30 can be improved upon (the screen and the extra stop 1600iso) don't really make me antsy...) so i could actually spend that money and buy a whole new back.....this is something that should make ALL makers think.....
we all win if something like this comes out....i guess it was a good thing that mamiya waited so long....the price is definitely right at this time......
-
so i could actually spend that money and buy a whole new back.....this is something that should make ALL makers think.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
theres somehting to think about....
-
With regard to the 14 bits of this back compared to the 16 of many others, you should look at the image quality and make judgements made on that rather than discounting the thing just based on numbers. I used to have a sinar 54s which allegedly was only 14 bits and the dynamic range was far superior to that of my canon 1ds mark 2 and although I havent got the sinar anymore so cant compare side by side I certainly dont see greater dynamic range from my 16 bit phase one back.
-
I too have been waiting for the Mamiya ZD back. I've always shot at 100 ISO or occasionally lower on film. I make perhaps twenty images a day, so I don't need anything more than 1 frame a minute. I absolutely want Windows support. Alpa will soon be making an adapter for the ZD back. I expect others like Cambo and Kapture Group will soon follow.
Cheers,
Kumar
-
I certainly dont see greater dynamic range from my 16 bit phase one back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120821\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bit depth and dynamic range are two totally different things. True 16-bit colour should give the user 4 times as many colours as 14-bit, which means smoother gradations.
-
your phase back also has 14bit as all other actual mf backs too. the 16 is pure nominal count. 2 bits of the 16 are not used.
-
PSS says "...but also about the future (it did take mamiya 3? years to release this thing in the US!), ..."
It really was not one but two different companies that brought the Mamiya ZD and the MFDB to market. The sale of the camera group and the new firm getting up to speed certainly affected, if not lengthened, the process.
I think there is also question about the part played by the MAC Group in the process. Did they drag their feet or were there lenghty negotiation of issues holding up the introduction here? Key personell at MAC left during this time, too. Did they leave because Mamiya's future at MAC was in question? MAC did take their Mamiya forum down shortly after the transition. Was this an indication of a lack of committment to the line?
Let's give Mamiya's new ownership some time to organize and act before casting the die. I am all for them. I love the 645 AFD. I've used other cameras as good, and considered better, including Rolleiflex (twin lens), Hasselelblad V, Topcon and Canon (film). For whatever reason, the Mamiya's have worked best for me.
-
Bit depth and dynamic range are two totally different things. True 16-bit colour should give the user 4 times as many colours as 14-bit, which means smoother gradations.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
and all that information is in the shadows and that is where i see a difference between the canons, the ZD back and my phase back.....
-
your phase back also has 14bit as all other actual mf backs too. the 16 is pure nominal count. 2 bits of the 16 are not used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
maybe..possibly....i don't even know exactly what this means...but i do know what i see and the differences i can tell....and to me the difference is there and worth the price......i have looked at ZD raw files before (before i bought my phase back) and the shadow detail looked muddy to me....the same thing that always bothered me about the canon files.....today i actually downloaded some more ZD raw files...same thing.....i am sure there is a lot that can be done with noise reduction software....but if the information isn't there in the first place, i don't want to make it up.....
i have always assumed that this "extra" depth/whatever was because of the extra pixel depth.....which btw is expotential not linear....the difference between 12 and 14 bit is huge (numerically) and even more so with 16bit.....and as far as i know the "missing" bits are always in the shadow areas......
i don't care about stats or numbers, but sometimes it helps to explain things.....this area is super personal and as always eveybody should make their own judgements....
either way the price of the ZD is great and the 1dsmkII is looking a little expensive (only when talking about absolute file quality at 100)...
-
PSS says "...but also about the future (it did take mamiya 3? years to release this thing in the US!), ..."
It really was not one but two different companies that brought the Mamiya ZD and the MFDB to market. The sale of the camera group and the new firm getting up to speed certainly affected, if not lengthened, the process.
I think there is also question about the part played by the MAC Group in the process. Did they drag their feet or were there lenghty negotiation of issues holding up the introduction here? Key personell at MAC left during this time, too. Did they leave because Mamiya's future at MAC was in question? MAC did take their Mamiya forum down shortly after the transition. Was this an indication of a lack of committment to the line?
Let's give Mamiya's new ownership some time to organize and act before casting the die. I am all for them. I love the 645 AFD. I've used other cameras as good, and considered better, including Rolleiflex (twin lens), Hasselelblad V, Topcon and Canon (film). For whatever reason, the Mamiya's have worked best for me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
i love mamiya too...i shoot with a 645afdII and a rzDII....i am excited about the new lenses....my concern is about the future of the Dback.....don't forget the piece they are releasing is 3 years old...so no development has gone into it or its' follow up......don't forget that phase and hass are also selling Dbacks at 7000$!....and those backs are 16 bit and show less noise at 400.....so for someone shooting commercially (or portrait), who does not need 20x24 fine art prints there are options out there and a big reason for a P20 might be to start buying into a system and trade up.....as far as i know mamiya has no announcements whatsoever about any future backs......if you are buying phase/hass/leaf/sinar you are buying years of experience and a more or less consistent upgrade path.....which is very important for workflow and piece of mind......
-
And I love my P45, soon to be a +, too! How important is it, do you think for Phase, that Mamiya be successful?
-
don't forget that phase and hass are also selling Dbacks at 7000$!....and those backs are 16 bit and show less noise at 400.....
As far as I know, not one of the backs has true 16bit, they are all 14bit converters, at least I remember the author of the "brumbaer" tools writing this, too. In the DSLR area only 2 cameras have 14bit color depth: the Fuji S3 (out of production)/S5, and now also the Canon Mark III.
Regards, Bernie
-
Don't know where you have these prices from but here in Germany I have to pay 10.000 EUR for the 16Mp back from Hass and 15.000 for the 17Mp Aptus 17, sorry but that is much more for much less...
-
In the DSLR area only 2 cameras have 14bit color depth: the Fuji S3 (out of production)/S5, and now also the Canon Mark III.
The Leica DMR is specified as 16-bit.
http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/file/dow...e=file_1166.pdf (http://www.leica-camera.us/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1166.pdf)
-
".....don't forget that phase and hass are also selling Dbacks at 7000$!....and those backs are 16 bit and show less noise at 400....."
I get confused with all the sensor sizes but don't these cheaper backs from Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad have smaller sensors? That's going to be the selling point of the Mamiya, a bigger sensor at a smaller price.
Barrie
-
The Leica DMR is specified as 16-bit.
I am not a Leica specialist, but I remember having read several times in Leica Forums, that the 16bit are a pure marketing feature, not real.
Bernie
-
I get confused with all the sensor sizes but don't these cheaper backs from Phase, Leaf and Hasselblad have smaller sensors? That's going to be the selling point of the Mamiya, a bigger sensor at a smaller price.
Barrie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120877\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are totally right. The Phaseone/Leaf backs that have to be compared to the Mamiya ZD are the P25/A22, not the P21/A17. When you do this, you realize the Phaseone and Lead are about 2.5 times more expensive than Mamiya (3.5 times in Japan).
You can buy a full Nikon D2x/Canon 1ds2 system with the extra money you'll have to pay for the Phaseone/Leaf products...
Only those shooting fashion/products are little impacted by the lack of wide angle capability, for the rest of us the P21/A17 are simply not realistic options.
Regards,
Bernard
-
You are totally right. The Phaseone/Leaf backs that have to be compared to the Mamiya ZD are the P25/A22, not the P21/A17. When you do this, you realize the Phaseone and Lead are about 2.5 times more expensive than Mamiya (3.5 times in Japan).
You can buy a full Nikon D2x/Canon 1ds2 system with the extra money you'll have to pay for the Phaseone/Leaf products...
Only those shooting fashion/products are little impacted by the lack of wide angle capability, for the rest of us the P21/A17 are simply not realistic options.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120894\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And still as i said aboth the nice A17 costs around 15000 Eurs that is MUCH more...
-
I think it can only be good for the MFDB scene that Mamiya is selling their backs at this price. It'll bring more photographers into this market.
For a long time the big three back makers have controlled the prices of all this gear, particularly the second hand backs, with their clever upgrading policy. The only way you could get a good used back was through them and they controlled the pricing. I felt this was always a bit restrictive. Now maybe it'll open up the market somewhat.
Barrie
-
For a long time the big three back makers have controlled the prices of all this gear, particularly the second hand backs, with their clever upgrading policy. The only way you could get a good used back was through them and they controlled the pricing. I felt this was always a bit restrictive. Now maybe it'll open up the market somewhat.
Barrie
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120906\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only feedback companies like Phase and Leaf are going to listen to carefully is feedback from their existing customer base.
The ZD back will help open up the market if the Phase/Leaf users realize that it is in their best interest to given an objective look at the Mamiya offering, acknowledge the quality of the files and feedback these information to Phaseone.
I am really afraid that many Phase users are going to act defensive here and try to justify to themselves and the rest of the world why they have spent 15.000 US$ extra for another theoretical small few % in image quality. What they should do in think further ahead and see that it is a unique opportunity for them to save money in the long run by having Phase/Leaf to lower their prices.
We are in a situation very similar to what happened 5 years ago when NIkon introduced the D1 at 1/2 the price of the Kodak DSLRs and completely changed the playing field.
Now, I really hope that Mamiya is going to keep investing and that they will release a 33MP version of the ZD within one year.
Regards,
Bernard
-
yes, this is what we have to see. till now the new onwers just finished things which already have been for years in the mamiya pipeline and which nearly have been finished when they took over mamiya. so lets see if there will be ongoing developement of new tools or if this is just a way of "selling out" what mamiya already has had.
-
I am really afraid that many Phase users are going to act defensive here and try to justify to themselves and the rest of the world why they have spent 15.000 US$ extra for another theoretical small few % in image quality. What they should do in think further ahead and see that it is a unique opportunity for them to save money in the long run by having Phase/Leaf to lower their prices.
Now, I really hope that Mamiya is going to keep investing and that they will release a 33MP version of the ZD within one year.
Regards,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
if we are talking about pure raw image quality (not taking into consideration speed, clean high asa, handling, af,......) and we rank the available cameras the 5D would easily win for its price/value.....and one could argue that those files are already at 85% of what a P45/H39 is....and the ZD would be at maybe 90% and the P30 at 95%, maybe the bunch is even closer, but that is always the case....the closer you get to the top, the more expensive it gets....expotentially.....some people buy speakers for 300.000$ and most people would not hear the difference between those and a pair of 1000$.....it comes down if you can justify or if the difference is worth the price for you.......and the ZD falls very nicely into the market...no question...but for someone who wants a certain quality the difference in price is not that much....and for me a file from a P20 is still better then a file from a ZD....and i don't care about shooting WA.....this is a personal choice that everybody has to make for themselves and anyone would be a fool NOT to look at a ZD these days.....but there ARE options and different jobs require different tools........
considering that it took THAT long to actually bring this back to the market with virtually unchanged specs since announcement and i am assuming that the entire team that built the thing is long gone in the shuffle that went on, i really would not hold my breath for a 33mpix version being announced and even if it was, i would really wait for a shipping date to get my hopes up.....
in my opinion the ZD will cut into canons marketshare more then into the back makers....people who bought a canon for the resolution will now get the ZD and will be better off.....
i also think it might influence the 1DsMKIII pricepoint (more so then the MF's......)
but either way canon will outsell them all 1000times.....
-
A MF digital for under 10K is certainly exciting news. But, and there is always a but, this camera was announced two years ago and has been available in Asia and Europe for about a year. When I contacted MAC back in November 2006 (before breaking down and buying a Contax 645 with a Phase One P25 back ... which did cost twice as much as the Mamiya) I was told that the back needed more work before it would be released on the US market and there was no planned release date. Now that it is here, the question has to be asked: Is this two year old technolgy, making this an technological antique upon it release or is this a second generation made for the US market?
If medium format digital is your desire it will be interesting to see how the new Mamiya back matches up with Canon's new Digi III on the 1D III (and the rumored 1Ds III) for color and resolution, as well as Mamiya glass compared to L glass. As far as comparisons to high grade MF backs by Leaf, Phase One and the H3D, I would not expect a David-Goliath result, but the bang for the buck could be significant.
Photo: Phase One P24 on Contax 645, 140MM. 4 images stitched in CS3.
-
The big haunting question is: Will the Mamiya ZD DMFB work on a view camera (or even better, a camera body such as the Cambo Wide DS) for more flexible architectural/landscape shooting and stitching ability?
My gut feeling is NO...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120691\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to agree: the ZD back is not even usable with non-Mamiya MF bodies, or older Mamiya bodies. Mamiya seems to have joined Hasselblad-Imacon/Fuji (the H system) in moving towards requiring digital backs and bodies to be of the same brand, so that the brief "mix and match" era in MF may be coming to an end. This might or might not be justified by the enhanced "team-work" between back, body, lens, and viewfinder metering, but I am sure that many will criticize it as an attempt by the few remaining MF camera makers to block out third party back makers.
-
Hi
Yes the ZD is for the Mamiya only but you can't compare the Hasselblad H3D which is a true closed loop camera. The Mamiya 645 AFDII is a completely open platform. Lets say you bought the $9999.00 kit & you wanted to rent an extra back for a specific job ( Leaf, Sinar, Phase & Imacon ) you can. As I have used the ZD camera & Aptus 22/75, at $6995.00 for a 22mp back this is deal. Plus the Mamiya lenses are reasonably priced & you can still pick up 2nd hand ones on ebay for a bargain compared to there quality.
Denis
-
I just figured it out. The MAC USA is selling the ZD back as a standalone unit for $6999, or as a package system with the 645 AFD II, 80mm lens, and the ZD back for $9999. The orignial Mamiya ZD, which is a closed system with the back being non-removable is not available in the US, but in Canada.
-
I just figured it out. The MAC USA is selling the ZD back as a standalone unit for $6999, or as a package system with the 645 AFD II, 80mm lens, and the ZD back for $9999. The orignial Mamiya ZD, which is a closed system with the back being non-removable is not available in the US, but in Canada.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121002\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I live in Europe so i get a choice.
Problem is I have a hard time to deceide whether to go with the ZD camera
or the back. Today I have an AFD body and a full set of prime lenses (except the 300). My initial plan was to get a AFD II body and the back. But perhaps the difference in flexibility isn't worth it. In that case I'd end up with a AFD for film and a ZD camera.
A couple of questions:
1. Is there an Arca-swiss compatible plate for the ZD camera? I have the Kirk
L-bracket for my 645AFD and would need something similar if I choose the
ZD camera route.
2. From various sites I have gathered that the ZD back comes with a viewfinder
screen that shows a cropped field of view. Is this done with a marker line in the
viewfinder image, or is the area "outside" the sensor blacked out? Ideally I'd
like the possibility of using the ZD back on several bodies, and switch between
film and digital. If this requires a focusing screen change it won't
be convenient, so I might as well get the ZD camera.
Any thoughts on this?
/Henrik
-
Henrik,
The zd camera and zd back are really two very different beasts...similar say to comparing the film based mamiya 7 rangefinder and the mamiya 645 or 67 cameras.
The zd will give you great portability and the zd back flexibility in terms of being able to use it on both 645afd and view cameras.
I think that is the choice you need to make first otherwise is your photgraphic style is being dictated by your equipment instead of the other way round.
Marc
-
The 14 bit/16bit debate is baloney. Its not what you've got, but what you do with it. The ZD has excellent dynamic range - you get muddy shadows from the ZD (camera) if you don't expose to the right and use that range properly. Its nothing to do with 14 bit capture. My 12 bit drum scanner creams 16bit CCD scanners.
Quentin
-
Hi
Yes the ZD is for the Mamiya only but you can't compare the Hasselblad H3D which is a true closed loop camera. The Mamiya 645 AFDII is a completely open platform. Lets say you bought the $9999.00 kit & you wanted to rent an extra back for a specific job ( Leaf, Sinar, Phase & Imacon ) you can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120998\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is there anything about the H3 body that prevents other companies like Leaf, Sinar and Phase from making backs that work on it? I can imagine that some communication features are lost, but would that still leave adequate functionality?
Anyway, given the great price advantage of the Mamiya options, and the great uncertainty hanging over Pentax entering the DMF market, I hope for success for Mamiya in DMF.
P. S. Thanks to marc wilson for pointing out the size and weight difference:
The Mamiya ZD body is 1300g [changed from 1200g that I got from DPReview to the 1300g at Mamiya Japan's web site.]
The Mamiya 645AFD II body plus ZD back is about 2200g, and far deeper.
I expected some size and weigh advantage to integrating the sensor into the body, but not that much! So maybe there is a market for the integrated ZD camera even if the modular body and back option is no more expensive and a ZD back upgrade costs less than upgrading the the next ZD body.
-
I expected some size and weigh advantage to integrating the sensor into the body, but not that much! So maybe there is a market for the integrated ZD camera even if the modular body and back option is no more expensive and a ZD back upgrade costs less than upgrading the the next ZD body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121056\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes however good in terms of price/performance etc digital backs are, and even with the obvious benefit of being able to use on them on both mf and view cameras I do feel there will always be the demand for the more portable option with mf quality that currently only the zd camera comes close to fulfilling...I am just a number of many I assume who await a medium format dslr that equals the image quality without question of a camera such as the mamiya 7 rangefinder at very large print sizes thus allowing the large prints that were associated with that camera from a very portable small lightweight solution.
As it stands at the moment the zd camera is the only option so I do hope an upgraded version will appear over the next few years..there do not seem to be any other manufacturers out there who would go that route..the upgraded zd with a mamiya zoom and a couple of hasselblad v series primes (my personal favourite mf lenses) using an adapter...nice!
Marc
-
The folks in Japan might see a 33MP Mamiya back in a year or two, and the folks in America will see the same back about 4 years later.
Is there anything about the H3 body that prevents other companies like Leaf, Sinar and Phase from making backs that work on it? I can imagine that some communication features are lost, but would that still leave adequate functionality?
These companies simply won't make backs for the H3. They know it was designed for the Hassy H closed system. They will continue to make them for the H1 and H2, but don't assume that anything other than a Hassy back will work with an H3.
-
The zd will give you great portability and the zd back flexibility in terms of being able to use it on both 645afd and view cameras.
Where was it announced that the ZD back will work with a view camera? Is there an external sync port?
Is there anything about the H3 body that prevents other companies like Leaf, Sinar and Phase from making backs that work on it?
I believe that the H3D camera body detects whether the attached back is the H3D back and won't work otherwise. The first example of 'locking out' the competition.
-
The 14 bit/16bit debate is baloney. Its not what you've got, but what you do with it. The ZD has excellent dynamic range - you get muddy shadows from the ZD (camera) if you don't expose to the right and use that range properly. Its nothing to do with 14 bit capture. My 12 bit drum scanner creams 16bit CCD scanners.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Simply not true. It means 4096 or 16384 different values per channel (provided there are true 16bit capture devices). This means alot more information in the 16bit file. If it would not give you a much better file in IQ it will give you a lot more room to work with in image editing programs.
So it is not just what you do with it but also what you can do with it. Whether people will notice it? some will, many don't I am afraid.
Not exposing the best way is simply user error which should be avoided
-
Simply not true. It means 4096 or 16384 different values per channel (provided there are true 16bit capture devices). This means alot more information in the 16bit file. If it would not give you a much better file in IQ it will give you a lot more room to work with in image editing programs.
So it is not just what you do with it but also what you can do with it. Whether people will notice it? some will, many don't I am afraid.
Not exposing the best way is simply user error which should be avoided
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
apart from the stats, there is a visible difference between 12/14 bit and 14/16 bit on the screen...of course a bad exposure or crazy file tweaking will ruin anything and there are retouchers out there that can make any file look pretty amazing, but there is just more information to start with (with 14/16bit) and i would always rather start with the most information possible.....
what is visible in print is a totally different discussion...
-
apart from the stats, there is a visible difference between 12/14 bit and 14/16 bit on the screen...of course a bad exposure or crazy file tweaking will ruin anything and there are retouchers out there that can make any file look pretty amazing, but there is just more information to start with (with 14/16bit) and i would always rather start with the most information possible.....
what is visible in print is a totally different discussion...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121072\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree.
I just don't want to dicuss whether you can see the difference between them. I know I can, so do you but I know a lot of people that do not. Which doesn't mean I can sometimes be mistaken
Anyway, indeed more information to begin with means even when you lose a lot in the process you still end up with a lot.
BTW, I think then ZD can be a very good thing for MFDB's but even more so for photographers. It will expand the market.
-
Marc,
The zd will give you great portability and the zd back flexibility in terms of being able to use it on both 645afd and view cameras.
I think that is the choice you need to make first otherwise is your photgraphic style is being dictated by your equipment instead of the other way round.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121042\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are they really that different? From a portability pov, the weight is most important (at least to me). I often hike for 1-2 weeks with the AFD + 2-4 lenses, a Xpan, a Gitzo tripod etc.
The datasheet says the ZD weighs 1300g. The AFD body weighs around 1000, and the ZD back 450.
The ZD camera is probably more resistant to dust, but OTOH the ZD back is easier to clean in the field. If I run out of batteries in the ZD camera I can continue shooting film with the same body.
My shooting is approx 2/3 landscape and 1/3 architecture, so a back that could mount on a view camera would be an advantage.
Thanks,
Henrik
-
1. Is there an Arca-swiss compatible plate for the ZD camera? I have the Kirk
L-bracket for my 645AFD and would need something similar if I choose the
ZD camera route.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=121024\")
Henrik,
Since the ZD slr camera is not available in US perhaps it is unlikely for Kirk or RRS to make an L-bracket. I ended custom make one first time four years back for my F100 w/battery pack and heavy lens (also made it to balance so the camera with heavey lens did not tip forward).
Since this I also custom made generic ones for my D200 and F100 without battery packs. I bought Kirk for my Mamiya 7II which is more elegant in appearance, but a custom made functions well also.
Check here for my original one of how I made it [a href=\"http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&forum=DCForumID15&om=456]http://www.nikonians.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/d...orumID15&om=456[/url]. I would recommend using 6mm thick aluminum for more sturdy, but make sure the screw to camera has sufficient threading (no triangular plate to brace, since finding place to weld aluminum is not easy). On my last generic ones I use Markins plates (have upgraded ballhead to Markins). Some markins plates have one screw and an additional threaded hole that I placed a second screw in. That holds the plates solid with no flex to my L-bracket.
I hope above helps.
Regards
Anders
-
The datasheet says the ZD weighs 1300g. The AFD body weighs around 1000, and the ZD back 450.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=121087\")
I see a far higher weight of 1730g for the 645 AFD II body (no batteries) at Mamiya's website [a href=\"http://www.mamiya.com/]http://www.mamiya.com/[/url]
645 AFDII body without back: 1730g
ZD back: 450g
So a total for 645 AFD II body plus ZD back of 2180g
[Edit: I agree now with 1300g for the ZD camera; the slightly lower 1200g seems to have been an error at DPReview.]
-
Expected ship date for ZD back.
I just received this reply about availability of the new mamiya ZD back.
---- Jeff Karp <jeffk@macgroupus.com> wrote:
Hello Dan,
I expect to have finished product within the next 90 days. I believe this is
very conservative and feel that product will be here much sooner, but we are
very strict on quality control of our products and would rather take an
extra month to guarantee performance.
thanks
Jeff Karp
Mamiya Product Marketing Manager
MAC Group
8 Westchester Plaza
Elmsford, NY 10523
914-347-3300 x268
Fax 914-347-3309
JeffK@MACgroupUS.com
www.Mamiya.com
-
I see a far higher weight of 1730g for the 645 AFD II body (no batteries) at Mamiya's website http://www.mamiya.com/ (http://www.mamiya.com/)
645 AFDII body without back: 1730g
ZD back: 450g
So a total for 645 AFD II body plus ZD back of 2180g
[Edit: I agree now with 1300g for the ZD camera; the slightly lower 1200g seems to have been an error at DPReview.]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The PDF brochure says 1730g for the body with 80mm and film back. The film back is 400g and the 80mm 300g on my kitchen scale. 2.4kg for the lot just doesn't make sense.
As a comparison, the RZ IID with 110mm and back weighs about 2500g.
/Henrik
-
The PDF brochure says 1730g for the body with 80mm and film back.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121097\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, on the line for the height, width and depth it has the heading
Size(w/ AF 80mm f/2.8 and 120/220 film back)
but the weight of 1730g is given on the following line which just says
Weight 1,730g(w/o battery)(61 ounces)
with no mention of a lens or back being included.
The B&H listing for the 645 AFD II body alone gives this same 1730g weight.
Still, Mamiya sometimes suffers from poor communication skills, so I suppose it could go either way!
-
I agree.
I just don't want to dicuss whether you can see the difference between them. I know I can, so do you but I know a lot of people that do not. Which doesn't mean I can sometimes be mistaken
Anyway, indeed more information to begin with means even when you lose a lot in the process you still end up with a lot.
BTW, I think then ZD can be a very good thing for MFDB's but even more so for photographers. It will expand the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121074\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This misses the real point about the "muddy shadows" reference to the ZD, which is user error, not a camera limitation. There are many variables in how any manufacturer sets up their equipment, quite apart from the hardware limitations themselves. These variables outweigh simplistic assumptions based solely on bit depth. Hence my earlier reference to 12 bit drum scanners blowing away 16 bit CCD scanners - just as some dslrs clip the highlights more readily than others, and the same chip in two different cameras may give very different results.
You have to look at the whole package.
Quentin
-
Expected ship date for ZD back.
I just received this reply about availability of the new mamiya ZD back.
---- Jeff Karp <jeffk@macgroupus.com> wrote:
Hello Dan,
I expect to have finished product within the next 90 days. I believe this is
very conservative and feel that product will be here much sooner, but we are
very strict on quality control of our products and would rather take an
extra month to guarantee performance.
thanks
Jeff Karp
Mamiya Product Marketing Manager
MAC Group
8 Westchester Plaza
Elmsford, NY 10523
914-347-3300 x268
Fax 914-347-3309
JeffK@MACgroupUS.com
www.Mamiya.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
/
Mmmm. I thought this was a finished product?90 days? I wonder how Leaf is taking this here in the US? They are distibuted by the same company. Could something be happening with Leaf here in the US over the same time period? After all Leaf will have thier own camera body and that conflicts with Mamiya correct?
Just my two cents....
Dg
-
This misses the real point about the "muddy shadows" reference to the ZD, which is user error, not a camera limitation. There are many variables in how any manufacturer sets up their equipment, quite apart from the hardware limitations themselves. These variables outweigh simplistic assumptions based solely on bit depth. Hence my earlier reference to 12 bit drum scanners blowing away 16 bit CCD scanners - just as some dslrs clip the highlights more readily than others, and the same chip in two different cameras may give very different results.
You have to look at the whole package.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....
none of this makes the ZD bad...not at all....but there is a difference and it is up to the individual to judge if that difference is worth the extra money....
my friend called me today again, (i pointed the back out to him and he has been looking at anything he can find about it).....he told me about the buffer and that it can shoot 11 exposures at 1.2 frames/sec and one has to wait 100sec for the buffer to clear after that!!!?? don't know if this is true, i had heard that it is bad but that is completely unuseable for portrait, fashion, editorial.....i mean of course some people shoot 4x5 portrait, but that is a different story......even if the 100sec are wrong and it is actually only 45sec, it is too long.......for someone shooting landscape, or architecture this does not matter at all of course......so it comes down to what you use the back for......and i am sure for a lot of people it is a great solution....
-
well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is interesting - any chance that you might refer us to where you downloaded these raw samples from so that we all can have a look and compare?
Thanks
-
This is interesting - any chance that you might refer us to where you downloaded these raw samples from so that we all can have a look and compare?
Thanks
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\")
got some from [a href=\"http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fraw.fotosite.pl%2Findex-Mamiya_ZD.htm&ei=Z8ZkRsO6JY_agwOVg92SBw&usg=AFQjCNEKceTlN_F8MvL5cdRa68xhLgYlEQ&sig2=IW2m1OTfdQ9lgaviLvQ_Zw]here[/url]......don't have the link to the other site anymore.....found several through google search....
-
my friend called me today again, (i pointed the back out to him and he has been looking at anything he can find about it).....he told me about the buffer and that it can shoot 11 exposures at 1.2 frames/sec and one has to wait 100sec for the buffer to clear after that!!!?? don't know if this is true, i had heard that it is bad but that is completely unuseable for portrait, fashion, editorial.....i mean of course some people shoot 4x5 portrait, but that is a different story......even if the 100sec are wrong and it is actually only 45sec, it is too long.......for someone shooting landscape, or architecture this does not matter at all of course......so it comes down to what you use the back for......and i am sure for a lot of people it is a great solution....
Hi
This does not make sense as I use this camera for portrait sometimes for editorial where I don't have the money to hire a digital back. While you are shooting the camera is processing so most of the time the buffer is never reached. The only way to test the camera is to try it out yourself.
Denis
-
my friend called me today again, (i pointed the back out to him and he has been looking at anything he can find about it).....he told me about the buffer and that it can shoot 11 exposures at 1.2 frames/sec and one has to wait 100sec for the buffer to clear after that!!!?? don't know if this is true, i had heard that it is bad but that is completely unuseable for portrait, fashion, editorial.....i mean of course some people shoot 4x5 portrait, but that is a different story......even if the 100sec are wrong and it is actually only 45sec, it is too long.......for someone shooting landscape, or architecture this does not matter at all of course......so it comes down to what you use the back for......and i am sure for a lot of people it is a great solution....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
100 seconds divided by 11 exposures = 9 seconds per shot. IOW, if you shoot at a somewhat constant rate of 1 shot every 10 seconds, you'll never run out of buffer. I'm sure there are plenty of portrait/fashion/editorial photogs who'd be fine with that - and quite a few who wouldn't.
-
Actually, this sounds a bit like the original 1Ds, and the 1Ds is usable in fashion, you just need to make sure you time it so you don't hit the buffer. 11 shots is the equivalent of an old 120 film roll !
More annoying is the lag between shots announced a 1s roughly, sometimes you do need to take two or three images in quick succession when you are dealing with a live event.
Edmund
100 seconds divided by 11 exposures = 9 seconds per shot. IOW, if you shoot at a somewhat constant rate of 1 shot every 10 seconds, you'll never run out of buffer. I'm sure there are plenty of portrait/fashion/editorial photogs who'd be fine with that - and quite a few who wouldn't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Actually, this sounds a bit like the original 1Ds, and the 1Ds is usable in fashion, you just need to make sure you time it so you don't hit the buffer. 11 shots is the equivalent of an old 120 film roll !
More annoying is the lag between shots announced a 1s roughly, sometimes you do need to take two or three images in quick succession when you are dealing with a live event.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
of course it is doable.....10 years ago anyone would have dreamed of this back, but today.....the game has changed and there are other options......there are some things that make this back come at the price it is.....that's all....
-
I was able to take a quick peek at a ZD yesterday. We will be getting it back to do some more testing in the next week or so. We will post our tests once we can give it a good workout.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
-
Just a few items that I noticed about the ZD:
1. small rear screen
2. slow image preview
3. 4 pin firewire port (not 6 pin w/ power)
4. buffer hits wall after 10 frames
5. can shoot both RAW / jpeg at the same time
6. reasonable price
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
Capture Integration
www.captureintegration.com
-
I don't think Leaf really cares or worries about the ZD....it is like comparing a VW Jetta with a Mercedes S550.....so even when distributed by the same company who cares. I wouldn't consider the ZD (like I did 3 years ago when it first "came out") I have learned a lot about digital photography since and am glad I went for the Canon Ds1 MII instead of waiting for the ZD and now that I use the canon as a backup and shoot with a Leaf A65....would never look back and eventough I shoot with a mamiya 645AFDII and a 67pro and lenses (and love them over hasselblad) I would not consider the ZD any longer. Just my 2cents
-
well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or try reading the reviews here on LL which do a good job of summing the camera up. Obviously I own one so I am hardly objective, but then again, some tools take more work than others to get right - I still own a Kodak 14nx, a camera widely derided by many but very capable once you work it out. A nice even histogram may spell trouble with a ZD file. But you have to make up your own mind with these things.
Quentin
-
Or try reading the reviews here on LL which do a good job of summing the camera up. Obviously I own one so I am hardly objective, but then again, some tools take more work than others to get right - I still own a Kodak 14nx, a camera widely derided by many but very capable once you work it out. A nice even histogram may spell trouble with a ZD file. But you have to make up your own mind with these things.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
that is one of the stranger advices i have read here.....don't check for yourself, just read michaels review!
i used to own the kodak as well...a very capable camera under the right conditions....but also capable of producing absolute crap....so the camera has to considered with a huge warning.....i think the ZD is much less "temperamental" but also has downsides that need to be pointed out....just like it has great pros (like the price) which is why we are even talking about it.....
either way...read the reviews and PLEASE look at raw files and make up your own mind!
-
6. reasonable price
Kind of an understatement :>))
For the price of any one of the standalone 'premier' backs currently available
a buyer can get the AFD II kit and quite possibly every new AF lens Mamiya currently offers.
Probably have some change left over to pick up a couple of used manual lenses as well.
Assuming this product release (now slated for release 90 days away) is valid I think Mamiya has
made a very good tactical move.
The files might,conceivably,be slightly inferior to other products but the price point is sure
to attract a huge number of new 'devotees' to the MF digital world who probably could not have afforded to make this decision with other brands.
As most photographers are pretty brand loyal (even though we won't admit it) once they make a choice Mamiya has them in the fold for lenses,accessories and back upgrades for years to come.
Mark
-
that is one of the stranger advices i have read here.....don't check for yourself, just read michaels review!
i used to own the kodak as well...a very capable camera under the right conditions....but also capable of producing absolute crap....so the camera has to considered with a huge warning.....i think the ZD is much less "temperamental" but also has downsides that need to be pointed out....just like it has great pros (like the price) which is why we are even talking about it.....
either way...read the reviews and PLEASE look at raw files and make up your own mind!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121317\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd definitly second that advice, but would add that the ZD RAW files should ideally be compared to image shot with the P25+ and A22 in similar conditions. This is the only way to understand how the 3 backs behave in terms of highlight rendition vs shadow noise.
The best way to do this is probably to convert the RAW files from each back with the best available software. C1 would probably be recommended by Phase, not sure what is best for the Lead. As far as the ZD goes, I would personnally recommend RAW developper 1.62 or Silkypix 3.08 at this point of time, but Lightroom 1.1 might change that.
Lightrrom works overall nicely with ZD Raw files, producing good colors and a very decent level of sharpness, but RD is superior as far as fringing is concerned. You have also much more control in terms of the ratio between noise reduction and sharpness with RD. Again, Lightroom 1.1 might change this and I assume that Mamiya and Adobe have worked together on this since LR now appears to be bundled with the ZD back in the US.
Regards,
Bernard
-
I received the following reply this morning to my email last week concerning use of the new ZD Back with view cameras for more flexiblity with the creation of architectural/landscape images:
>Hello Joseph
>At this time there is no way to connect the Mamiya ZD back to a view camera.
>Please understand this is a very new product – in fact it will be a month or so before production is really rolling.
>However, there are plans in the future to have an adapter that will allow you to connect to view cameras. No details are >currently available. We’ll do our best to keep you informed, but feel free to contact me with any questions.
>Regards
>Jeff Karp
>Mamiya Product Marketing Manager
>MAC Group
>8 Westchester Plaza
>Elmsford, NY 10523
>914-347-3300 x268
>Fax 914-347-3309
>JeffK@MACgroupUS.com
>www.Mamiya.com
While Jeff has confirmed my suspicions about the lack of a view camera attachment with this ZD Back model, he offers fodder for a number of issues raised in this forum discussion with the phrases "this is a very new product" and "there are plans in the future". Maybe not only for just the adapter?
Joe Bossuyt
-
well i downloaded raw samples again and looked at them 50, 100 and 125iso with perfect exposure, nice even histogram, nothing clipped....all 3 show what i consider muddy shadows, just like the canons...neither the P20 nor the P30 show any sign of this.....even at higher iso (400, 800) they get grainier, noisier but they maintain more information.....maybe i am crazy, but that is totally obvious on my screen.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=121151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would like to see a side by side comparison of this muddy shadows, I think this is more a software dependant problem than what backs are really capable of. Just for testimony I've attached a shot I did while waiting for the sun to pop out. As it can be seen default ACR shows even clipped shadows (which disappear when black level goes down). It's just an exaggeration of fill light to show how much information digital cameras contain even in shadows, so if there is so much information, getting well balanced, gradiented shadows should be more a matter of software.
Just my two cent.
Arnau Anglada
-
I would like to see a side by side comparison of this muddy shadows, I think this is more a software dependant problem than what backs are really capable of. Just for testimony I've attached a shot I did while waiting for the sun to pop out. As it can be seen default ACR shows even clipped shadows (which disappear when black level goes down). It's just an exaggeration of fill light to show how much information digital cameras contain even in shadows, so if there is so much information, getting well balanced, gradiented shadows should be more a matter of software.
Just my two cent.
Arnau Anglada
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
different software can pull different things out of the shadows (or the whole file for that matter), so of course this is software dependend.....but like i said before, if the information isn't there, the software can't show it...or worse: it will make it up....
C1 pulls a tiny bit more detail out of my P30 files then LR/CR does...but the ease of handling makes me stick with LR....of course this is also because the P30 do have so much information....so i don't have to worry about loosing 0.5%.....
-
Hi
Since I own a ZD camera & use it 90% more than my 5D. On the subject of the small screen the best way to deal this is to buy a viewer (Epson..etc..) to take advantage that the ZD back will shoot jpegs which I think is the only back that does this? On location shoot Raw/jpeg & then download the card on the viewer. Then you can scroll through your images faster & without burning up battery power on the ZD back. This way you can concentrate on your photography. As far as viewers go I don't know which one is best.
Thanks Denis
My Webpage (http://www.montalbetticampbell.com)
-
I just read this on the main page:
Mamiya Digital has announced the Mamiya ZD 645AFD II Digital System......[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=120574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry for being dense- I can't find it
-
Sorry for being dense- I can't find it
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=121665\")
[a href=\"http://www.mamiya.com/]http://www.mamiya.com/[/url]
-
anyone know if the zd will work w/ the older rz67 and rz67II? all the literature mentions the proIID but doesn't specifically say it's not compatible with the older bodies.
-
Along the same lines. What is the difference with interfacing the back between the 645, the 645AFd, and the 645 AFDII. I keep reading but I've haven't found an explanation of the differences. Can I use the back on the 645AFD or do I need the 645AFDII?
-
Along the same lines. What is the difference with interfacing the back between the 645, the 645AFd, and the 645 AFDII. I keep reading but I've haven't found an explanation of the differences. Can I use the back on the 645AFD or do I need the 645AFDII?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122115\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi
From my reading at the MAC group you can use the 645 AFd with the ZD back however you won't get the shooting rate that you will get with the 645 AFDII. I think the 645 can be up graded and the question here is it worth it. you would be better to put your money into a 645 AFDII. I have seen these bodies go for about $1600.00 USD on ebay.
Thanks Denis
-
Ok, so Bottom Line:
Is the Image Quality of the ZD back as good as the one of the other 22mp, but more expensive MFDB's?
If so then the other MFDB mfg's might reduce their backs prices... If not, they hold their ground.
The 20+ mp 1Ds mk3 is only 2-3 months away. And although IQ might be superb it will still be a smaller format and all what that entails..
-
Good to see one of the Japanese players finally dipping their toes into the MFDB market. Whether it makes any difference or not remains to be seen.
But, they have seriously deep pockets and that's the only way anyone can scare the Hassie/Sinar crowd into making their (excellent) product more affordable.
D.