645AFDIIwithZD Back or ZD?

[HAK]

I'm new to this forum and thank all posters for their - mostly - valueable insights and recommendations.
I owned a M645 about 20 years ago, lost interest in photography but rediscovered it with a Dynax 5D (because of my old Minolta glass).
Now I want to upgrade to MF for mainly landscape, architekture and close-ups of interesting structures of any form.
I've read many posts about the ZD and the 645AFDII +ZD Back but can not make up my mind yet.
The integrated ZD seems a more modern approach - at first.
But isn't the 645+ZD Back a more versatile solution, offering more than only easier sensor cleaning. It allows the use of other digibacks, if I really want to upgrade. And I could swap from time to time to a film back (perhaps helpfull if travelling and there is a technical problem with the ZD Back).
I had both cameras in my hands now, loved both but found the 645 a bit better weight balanced.

Has anyone of you some experience with both of them, that he could share with me?

I think I need some help to overcome the feeling, that the 645+Back represent an 'old' solution vs a 'modern' integrated DSLR approach of the ZD. A feeling that is strengthend by the fact that I can get a new 645+ZD Back at about 2.500 Euro cheaper than a new ZD. Is this a 'discount' for a dying technique?

Thank you in advance for your feed-back!

[Ken Doo]

But isn't the 645+ZD Back a more versatile solution, offering more than only easier sensor cleaning. It allows the use of other digibacks, if I really want to upgrade. And I could swap from time to time to a film back (perhaps helpfull if travelling and there is a technical problem with the ZD Back).
I had both cameras in my hands now, loved both but found the 645 a bit better weight balanced.

I think you've answered your own question.  

[mcfoto]

I'm new to this forum and thank all posters for their - mostly - valueable insights and recommendations.
I owned a M645 about 20 years ago, lost interest in photography but rediscovered it with a Dynax 5D (because of my old Minolta glass).
Now I want to upgrade to MF for mainly landscape, architekture and close-ups of interesting structures of any form.
I've read many posts about the ZD and the 645AFDII +ZD Back but can not make up my mind yet.
The integrated ZD seems a more modern approach - at first.
But isn't the 645+ZD Back a more versatile solution, offering more than only easier sensor cleaning. It allows the use of other digibacks, if I really want to upgrade. And I could swap from time to time to a film back (perhaps helpfull if travelling and there is a technical problem with the ZD Back).
I had both cameras in my hands now, loved both but found the 645 a bit better weight balanced.

Has anyone of you some experience with both of them, that he could share with me?

I think I need some help to overcome the feeling, that the 645+Back represent an 'old' solution vs a 'modern' integrated DSLR approach of the ZD. A feeling that is strengthend by the fact that I can get a new 645+ZD Back at about 2.500 Euro cheaper than a new ZD. Is this a 'discount' for a dying technique?

Thank you in advance for your feed-back!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi I own a ZD camera & 2 645 afd bodies. For editorial & stock, personal.....etc I use the ZD camera. For AD jobs where I need a larger buffer I rent the Aptus 22 & have the ZD camera as back up. The Mamiya system is light enough that you can hand hold both. When I spent last week shooting on the street with the ZD camera I loved it. It was light enough that I could have carried my 5D & a 70-200 zoom also. If I had to carry a ZD back on the 645 afd for that situation it would have been very awkward. I have seen seen AFD II bodies sell on ebay for $1600.00 USD.

[Anders_HK]

I can get a new 645+ZD Back at about 2.500 Euro cheaper than a new ZD. Is this a 'discount' for a dying technique?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi, I have the ZD camera. Perhaps the 2.500 Euro in difference answers your question, perhaps the flexibility of changing backs if you prefer to do so?

Else... I come from SLRs so for me I was most interested in the ZD camera. I looked and held in both because people seem to rave about the flexibility of a back. Here are some aspects:

AFDII + ZD
- Flexibility with changing backs and upgrading DBs
- Sensor is not easier to clean. You have the removable filter just as the ZD camera, but... you also have the seal between camera and back and a very large camera chamber that are weaknesses to admitting dust.
- Controls are on both camera and back, you need to switch both on unless I am misstaking.
- The back is newer and still have some glitches. Yet, sensor and all else in them are same.

ZD Camera
- The entire concept is very lovely.
- Controls, buttons, menus are very excellent. Comparing to Nikon and Canon, the ZD camera feels like a camera, not complex computer. I wish Nikon and Canon would learn...
- Easier to walk with and carry. Less bulky than the AFDII + ZD. That was important to me.

A premium of 2.500 Euro is large though...

Regards
Anders

[HAK]

Thank you for your input.

Those who have changed to Digibacks - Mamiya cameras or others - do you often switch back and forth between digi and film? Or do you just use another camera for shooting film?

And I have another question to those, who convert their photos to black&white: is the quality of a digiback less important for black&white?

I would love to see some b/w shots from the ZD or ZD back!!!!!!