Mamiya ZD thoughts / samples?

[Kate-The-Great]

Now that MF Digital used prices are dropping, I've been seriously considering a Mamiya ZD (the integrated camera, not the back- wish they'd named them differently to avoid confusion!) Anyone around here still using one? Thoughts / experiences / warnings / praises? I would love to get my hands on some RAW samples to try my workflow on them, if someone has some throwaway shots with various subjects and ISO settings they'd be willing to share.

[PebblePlace]

Set expectations accordingly for a very outdated rear LCD, and assume you'll be using the camera only at ISO 50.  Yes, ISO 100 is mostly okay, but considered it an ISO 50 camera to keep expectations grounded. 

[Kate-The-Great]

Thanks for the response, PebblePlace. Consider me warned about the awful LCD- as long as it can do a passable job of displaying a histogram, I'll be satisfied. I'm very curious about specific details of performance at various ISO settings though- reviews I've read have said "don't ever go above X unless in an absolute emergency", where X= variously 50, 100 or 200- everyone says something different. This manly is why I'm hoping to get my hands on RAW samples. Having shot film for a long time, I like to think my tolerance for grain/noise is pretty high. Is the dreaded ISO 400 on the ZD as bad as ISO 400 film? ISO 1600? Is there banding (image ruiner) or just chroma (fixable in post) and luma (doesn't bother me) noise?

To give some context where I'm coming from and what my expectations may be like, I am currently shooting a 5D "classic" with EF 40mm f/2.8 as my main camera and a Fuji X-E1 with an old LTM Canon 28mm f/3.5 as a walkabout body. Before that I had a Fuji GW690 with the 90mm paired with an Epson R-D1 and 28mm, and have previously used Mamiya 645 (film), Rolleiflex, a couple different 4x5 setups and various dSLR systems.

I'm feeling frustrated by certain limitations the 5D has with DR and resolution and think a ZD with 55mm f/2.8 Sekor would be a great addition to the kit. I've heard from several sources that the ZD has noticeably better highlight range than the Canon 1Ds III and 5D II- can anyone comment if this still holds true compared to the 5D III and 6D?

[BernardLanguillier]

I sold mine when the D3x was released late 2008 and frankly never looked back.

Image quality is ok at ISO50, but still clearly behind in all aspects compared to the latest 36+ mp AA filter less sensors from Sony.

And that's the only area where the camera performs nicely. All the rest is poor, with a special price for battery life in cold weather that can decently not be called anything but disastrous (think less than 30 images per battery at -10c).

I tried various lenses, including the expensive 28mm f4, and found it to be a disapointing performer. My copy of the 300mm f4 had a lot of mount play that made it very hard to get sharp images on tripod even with mirror lock up.

In short, I would personnally not go there.

Cheers,
Bernard

[torger]

Getting a ZD for some sort of image quality improvement seems risky. It's one of the least capable MFD cameras you can get.

Worth noting is that it degrades very quickly with increased shutter speeds, multi-second means lots of noise increase if I remember correctly. I've seen raw samples but I don't think I have any left. I would not recommend this cameras considering how little extra you need to spend to get something a little better. In a studio with flash you can get good results though, so it depends on your shooting use cases.

Getting old MFD gear with the idea to improve image quality is not a nice space to be, the gear is worse in almost every aspect than a recent high res 135 camera so you will feel stressed by the fast pace of improvements coming mainly from Sony and Nikon quickly making your MFD falling behind the competition in most aspects.

That said using legacy MFD gear can be fun as it's different in an old-school way, and I think it's there you need to focus. I shoot MFD on a Linhof Techno tech view camera to get the large format photography feel and creative possibilities without having to mess with film. I'm very happy with that but also know I sacrifice DR, long exposure, live view, etc compared to modern cameras.

As I understand the budget is really tight though, and looking for a second hand 1Ds III for your Canon could be an option, which has less banding noise than 5D mark II. Or you do get a 5D mark II, should be real cheap second hand. Yes banding noise is there but it will depend on your use cases if it's a problem or not. I can't remember last time I had banding issues when I shoot with mine as I rarely need to push shadows. If I'd do that a lot then I'd be frustrated with the banding though, but then there's no camera like the Sonys and Nikons with Sony Exmor sensors. Older models of those are available second hand at low prices.

If you really want to go MFD the 22 megapixel backs provide great image quality, no banding noise issues, decent DR etc. I can still shoot those today and like the results. Better than most Canons (with 7D mark II, 5Ds etc their banding problem is gone though). I would get something a little more modern than the ZD though.

[synn]

If you can find an Aptus II 5, go for it. The files from that are beautiful.

[SecondFocus]

You would be so much better off getting a new Canon 5DMkIII. Especially with the prices on it right now. Image quality is completely so much better than your 5D and the file size gets you up to the ZD. Then get a good lens to go with it. And a side note, I expect that any repairs on that ZD will cost a fortune as compared to it's value.

[lowep]

I am currently shooting a 5D "classic"

I migrated from a Mamiya ZD to a 5D classic and found the ZD delivered better IQ at 100asa but the 5D was better for everything else. The main reason I did so was because the images I got out of the ZD at 400asa were not satisfactory and at 800asa were worse. So if you plan to shoot models with lights at 50 or 100asa then the ZD may be worth considering but otherwise I agree with what others more expert than me have to say... heck maybe you would even be better off with a different dinosaur like the Kodak DCS-14n that like the ZD has an "interesting" character, also performs well at 100asa, can be used with your Canon lenses, and can be used to get this desire to change platforms out of your system for about 1/6th the price than experimenting with the ZD.

[SecondFocus]

I also thought the Kodak DCS cameras would be interesting. However as I looked into it, as I recall, there are issues about RAW file support.

If you had already had a good Mamiya 645AFDII or III system with lenses and could find a good used ZD back for maybe $1,000, then I would say go for it. The 5DMkIII is your best choice if you want to stay with Canon. Otherwise you might want to stay with Fuji as you already have one. The XT-1 is pretty great.

I migrated from a Mamiya ZD to a 5D classic and found the ZD delivered better IQ at 100asa but the 5D was better for everything else. The main reason I did so was because the images I got out of the ZD at 400asa were not satisfactory and at 800asa were worse. So if you plan to shoot models with lights at 50 or 100asa then the ZD may be worth considering but otherwise I agree with what others more expert than me have to say... heck maybe you would even be better off with a different dinosaur like the Kodak DCS-14n that like the ZD has an "interesting" character, also performs well at 100asa, can be used with your Canon lenses, and can be used to get this desire to change platforms out of your system for about 1/6th the price than experimenting with the ZD.

[MichaelEzra]

Hi Kate, I've been using ZD for studio and landscape work since 2006. As any camera it has limitations and as any system it has its strength. ZD is primarily usable at the base ISO and I've used that ISO in both studio and landscape shooting with great results. ZD cameras had a problem with firewire boards. I had my replaced by the dealer. ZD files can deliver stunning richness of color and detail. the best software for ZD files is free open source RawTherapee (rawtherapee.com). It has an automated flat field correction (which is necessary with ZD files and in fact was developed with Emil Martinec per my request for this ZD camera:)) and other state of the art bells and whistles. Per pixel acuity of the ZD image is better than D800E. D800E has a larger file and therefore more details overall. Here is the comparison for image center only: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=75271.0;attach=75587;image.  Forum thread: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=75271.40

I personally mostly switched to D800E. With that said, I am thinking about selling my ZD camera. If you need samples or more info feel free to PM.

[Kate-The-Great]

I appreciate the comments, y'all. I am inclined to perhaps believe that my expectations and use cases are very different from the audience Mamiya intended

I do concede that a 5D MKIII would be a more rational option, with high-ISO options and Live View etc. That said, I do landscape/architecture/walkaround photography for fun; I'm not a commercial photographer and I have a soft spot for older esoteric kit. As for the ZD vs other contemporary MFD options, the ergonomics and portable/handheld usability (with short lenses) of the Mamiya seems vastly superior. That, as much as IQ, is important to me. Funny that the Kodak 14N should come up- I was actually all ready to buy an SLR/N on EBay in April until I found the 5D for 200$ cheaper locally.

Michael- thank you for the offer of samples! I will PM you shortly.

I did find a single .MEF sample at ISO 50 in the depths of The Internet and I was impressed. Pushed 1 stop, shadow noise from the ZD looked to my eyes similar to noise at ISO 100 on my 5D, and even pushing an outrageous 4 stops resulted in noise levels that I would consider useable for my purposes, especially converted to B&W. Perhaps Lightroom 6's RAW engine is doing something behind the scenes but I saw no chroma noise and found the luma noise of an unobjectionable "film-like" character.

The short battery life does scare me a bit though. Sounds like many spares are a must.

[lowep]

alternatively you could stick with the 5D and use the money you save plus a bit extra to buy this 1970 Lincoln Continental that is also a classic. 

[Kate-The-Great]

alternatively you could stick with the 5D and use the money you save plus a bit extra to buy this 1970 Lincoln Continental that is also a classic. 

Ha, I suppose I could Although as far as classic cars go, a late '60s Mercedes S would be more my cup of tea

[Kate-The-Great]

One more question I forgot to bring up- Autofocus. I see that Mamiya's AF lenses use screwdrive so I'm not expecting much for speed, and the "mere" 3 AF points does not phase me- but how is accuracy with shorter lenses? As mentioned earlier, I plan on exclusively using the 55mm 2.8 and perhaps adding a 110 later. How useable are manual-focus lenses without the optional and very rare split-image finder screen?

[lowep]

another thing maybe worth considering if you haven´t already is that shooting the ZD hand held as you seem to be planning to be doing may be not as easy with the ZD due to the larger sensor size compared with the more manageable 5D, as this thread also suggests, though other former ZD owners may have different experience.

[Kate-The-Great]

Ah, yeah. I do remember reading that in the initial LuLa review. After reading reviews from multiple sources, looks like the ZD is generally unsuitable for hand-held use with longer lenses, but works well with short ones. When Michael Reichmann reviewed the ZD later, he noted that "I was regularly able to hand hold the ZD at the typical 1 / focal length shutter speed, with pin sharp results – at least with shorter lenses. This shows impressive mirror and shutter damping.", which gives me hope for handholding with a 55. It may sound crazy, but I occasionally used the mirror-up lever when handholding my M645 many years ago to mitigate shake with the 150mm.

[MichaelEzra]

Kate, please see my PM with the download link.
Regarding AF on ZD camera - I found AF is just fast enough. I used center focusing area only (actually am using that on D800E also, although it has 51 of them). The other ones are still too close to the center and not as sensitive. However the center one is *dead on*. perfectly and exactly correct focus, something I always struggled with Nikon, regardless of AF  adjust,  but never with ZD. ZD does have a remarkable feel in handling. It is large enough, not too heavy and has a ridiculously pleasant sound of the shutter:)

[Kate-The-Great]

Glad to hear the AF is accurate. I too stick with a single AF point, no need for more than that with still subjects

[billthecat]

I have a 5D2, 6D and a ZD back. In my DR tests at base ISO the 5D2 and ZD back had about the same DR. Though the ZD feels as though it has better DR. The ZD has better colors and a better look with correct lighting. The 6D has much better noise than the 5D2, it also has smoother tones. Here's a ZD photo (the last one) and a 6D photo taken near the same time but with different setups. I used the ZD since it was easier to balance the sky with flash.

Bill

...I'm feeling frustrated by certain limitations the 5D has with DR and resolution and think a ZD with 55mm f/2.8 Sekor would be a great addition to the kit. I've heard from several sources that the ZD has noticeably better highlight range than the Canon 1Ds III and 5D II- can anyone comment if this still holds true compared to the 5D III and 6D?

[synn]

Glad to hear the AF is accurate. I too stick with a single AF point, no need for more than that with still subjects

This is my experience with the DF+ too. There's only one usable AF point, but it is dead on.