Move to MF and the ZD

[hauxon]

I've been thinking for a while if I should make a move to MF.  I mostly shoot landscape and portrait with occational bird shots and events.  My current gear is a Canon 1DsII and solid collection of lenses mostly L primes.  It's a versatile setup and I can shoot in almost any situation and expect satisfactory results.  But recently I've started thinking if I should have two cameras one for high IQ and resolution and other for action, low light and extreme long exposures.Bodies like the new Canon 50D and Nikon D300 are pretty cheap and would probably serve my needs for bird photography, events and low-light.

The big question is however the other end, the medium format part.  I ccould call myself a semi-pro (sounds better than being an amateur or hobbyist) so budget is a concern.  That fact pretty much leaves me to the 4 year old Mamiya ZD back or camera if I'm going MF.  I know Phase One P25 and other similar backs can be had for little less than $10000 but that's already double what the ZD is going for these days.  I can have a ZD back and the very expensive 28mm lens for less than $10000.  So my focus in this round will be on the ZD.

There are lot of threads on the ZD.  Many describing some kind of problems.  I have searched the net back and forth for good information on the ZD and results are few and not really helpful.  LL has three short articles on the ZD but no real test.  I can actually find no serious test of the ZD anywhere.  So I'm asking those who know, have there been any firmware fixes to older ZD backs?  I remember an image where longer exposures on the ZD look simply horrible, not extreme long exposures but 15, 30 and 60 seconds and on the 60 second shot the blue channel wasn't even a recognizable image!  Has this been changed by firmware updates?  Still this way?  I need at least 10-15 seconds for many of my landscapes since I like running water and moving skies on uw lenses.  I could do with using a 35mm camera for night images /aurora.

Thanks, Hrannar

[Sami Kulju]

where longer exposures on the ZD look simply horrible, not extreme long exposures but 15, 30 and 60 seconds
Thanks, Hrannar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Here is horrible 25 sec picture with ZD.
I take no responsibility of the nightmares after opening the file...




[attachment=8093:attachment]

sami

[Gary Yeowell]

If you want good 15-20 second exposures buy a 1DS3 and forget the ZD camera IMO, don't know if the ZD back is different.

Gary.

[hauxon]

Here is horrible 25 sec picture with ZD.
I take no responsibility of the nightmares after opening the file...
[attachment=8093:attachment]

sami
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217548\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for your reply Sami.  Your 25 sec exposure looks good, at least at this resolution.  I would apreciate if you could email me (hrannarh at gmail dot com) the raw image for this shot for furthe investigation.  Your image seems to be much better than shown in the image I linked to in my first post.  I would of course try renting the thing if I could (Iceland = tiny market).

Gary on what do you build you concusion.  Did you have a ZD camera?

Best, Hrannar

[billthecat]

When I tried 15sec exposures I failed with the ZD. The noise was too bad. I have given up the ZD for night shots.

The ZD isn't good for events. I can never get the camera to focus quickly enough. It is also sometimes hard to get shots of people who won't stay still. I have to focus with one focus point, and then recompose. Often my AFDII is slow. But it is accurate. Then 1fps and a small buffer isn't good for events. And it locks up every so often.

I like the image quality a lot. It is good for shots where you have enough light, or you use studio flash.  It really beats the Nikon D3, and I presume the 1Ds3.

It is not an all around camera like a 1DsII.

My ZD doesn't have any color problems. The AWB tends to yellow but you can fix that. I try to always use ISO 50. ISO 100 gets a bit more noisy in the shadows but you can use it in a pinch.

Frank used to have a ZD and wrote about it:
http://www.doorhof.nl/blog/index.php

Bill

[Gary Yeowell]

No i did not own it however a fellow shooter loaned me his to see if i wanted to buy it, he replaced it with a 1DS3. After using it for a week i concluded for outdoor use in uncontrolled lighting it was poor. Colours were awful, had focus issues, long exposures ugly and the camera was like something from the Arc in use. I gave it back to him and concluded we had both made the right choice in the 1DS3. Others see it differently  i guess.

Gary.

[hauxon]

Looks like the ZD is purely a studio device and then maybe not the right tool for me.  The thing is I used to have a Mamiya RZ67 and kind of miss it.  I just don't like the hazzle of developing and scanning film, have been digitalized for too long.  The best move for me is probably to wait and see how things evolve in the MF land.  Still wish the ZD was what we all hoped it would be.  

I kind of hoped that some of the issues discussed would have been solved with a firmaware upgrade.  We would probaby have heard about it.  Sami I'd still like to see that RAW file is possible.

I would also like other people who have a ZD comment (Michael Ezra??).  I have also followed Jack and Guy's moves in the getdpi forum.  The ZD made a short stop with them. Andy Biggs also quit using his ZD pretty soon.

Best, Hrannar

[pss]

if you HAVE TO HAVE mf at under 10000...take a look at the P21....maybe the most underrated back out there.....or maybe just in this forum.....just amazing quality.....

or get the dsIII....pretty hard to argue against it at this point....it really does it all....very well....you won't get the superspeed or superhigh iso or the superduper resolution and crispness of the phase backs but it really will give you amazing versatility and very very nice and very large files.....

[Pantoned]

I had a ZD (camera, not back). And switched to 1ds mark II and now 1dsmIII. The first day I switched to canon, I couldn't believe how noisy the canon files were compared to the ZD, that is of course shooting 50 ISO in controled light.
If you are considering between ZD and 1dsMIII these are the main factors you should have in mind, everything has been discussed a thousand times on the forum.

ZD Pros
- Good picture quality in controlled light, studio or outside, don't go over 100ISO.
- Lack of AA filter, this is the MAIN advantage of MF digital backs, the drawback (on this camera) is lots of moire, so if you are planing on using it for fashion just forget it or buy the optional AA filter, I don't have experience with it.
- 6x4.5 image ratio format, very confortable for commercial work.
- The big sensor produces nice shallow DOF, the thing i most miss from MF.
- More dynamic range than canon. The gap has been closed a little with the mIII.
 
ZD Cons
- Noise above iso100 or long exposures, never go over 30s.
- Problems with tethered shooting because of cable connection. Maybe they have solved this with the back but the ZD camera has a stupid small firewire connection.

1dsmIII pros
- Versatility, comfort and adaptation to almost all kind of works and light situations.

1dsmIII cons
- I personally HATE the 3:2 format, I'm always throwing 3-5mp to crop for commercial work, besides this I just can't stand how photos look in this format but that is a matter of taste.
- Strong AA filter, you have to sharpen files way more than 1dsmII, not to say MF files that almost need no sharpening.
- I haven't found a formula to shoot wide with shallow DOF on a canon. Opening a 50mm to 1.4 on a canon doesn't produce enough good quality for me. I thing this is just a problem that cannot be avoided with 35mm cameras because the main problem is sensor size. I like to shoot with MF, with 50 or 80mm I can have a lot of background, separate the person from the background and the images look fine. If you shoot with, let's say 150-200mm with the canon you can have a nice bokeh but the image gains in flatness.

I finally sold the ZD because they offered me a good used price and was afraid that the camera would devaluate fast in the used market (it happened). Even so I think the 1dsmIII will devaluate even faster. I keep all mamiya lenses and the day they put on the market a 1600ISO camera I'll switch again.

Arnau

Looks like the ZD is purely a studio device and then maybe not the right tool for me.  The thing is I used to have a Mamiya RZ67 and kind of miss it.  I just don't like the hazzle of developing and scanning film, have been digitalized for too long.  The best move for me is probably to wait and see how things evolve in the MF land.  Still wish the ZD was what we all hoped it would be. 

I kind of hoped that some of the issues discussed would have been solved with a firmaware upgrade.  We would probaby have heard about it.  Sami I'd still like to see that RAW file is possible.

I would also like other people who have a ZD comment (Michael Ezra??).  I have also followed Jack and Guy's moves in the getdpi forum.  The ZD made a short stop with them. Andy Biggs also quit using his ZD pretty soon.

Best, Hrannar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Justinr]

Looks like the ZD is purely a studio device and then maybe not the right tool for me.  The thing is I used to have a Mamiya RZ67 and kind of miss it.  I just don't like the hazzle of developing and scanning film, have been digitalized for too long.  The best move for me is probably to wait and see how things evolve in the MF land.  Still wish the ZD was what we all hoped it would be. 

I kind of hoped that some of the issues discussed would have been solved with a firmaware upgrade.  We would probaby have heard about it.  Sami I'd still like to see that RAW file is possible.

I would also like other people who have a ZD comment (Michael Ezra??).  I have also followed Jack and Guy's moves in the getdpi forum.  The ZD made a short stop with them. Andy Biggs also quit using his ZD pretty soon.

Best, Hrannar
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Don't give up on it just yet!

On Sunday I covered a national Irish horse riding event and I took both my Canon 30d and the AFD/ZD. Yep, on the face of it the Canon was certainly more suited to this sort of thing being quicker to focus (AF actually seemed to be working for a change) and fire and with no lock up problems etc, but having viewed the results on the laptop I decided to take out the ZD after lunch just so that I could get some images with half decent colour and dynamic range. It is certainly slower and I missed some shots, I also lost about 60 due to card writing problems which really annoyed me, but overall the pictures I got out of it just look so much better than those that the Canon had produced. Another photographer, stood alongside me, was  working with a 1D and her results were far more contrasty and really exaggerated the shadows. She also complained that Canons magical fix of the AF was no such thing and generally regretted the day that she had bought it. Overall, I was happier with the ZD.

The AFD with ZD back could be a wonderful tool if only Mamiya would develop it. It's good as it is, but there is so much room for improvement in its general day to day operation although its output is usually streets ahead of dSLR's.

I have many examples of the Mamiya on my site, all the main Photoblog pages are from it as well as the portraits and the Images of Ireland gallery (under Stock Library) For a comparison between the Canon and Mamiya take a look at 'equine images' (Stock Library again), all those listed as +4 (mostly on the later pages) are ZD, the others are Canon.

Justin.  [a href=\"http://justinseye.com]My site[/url]

[stefan marquardt]

I would say:

landscape and portrait: good
birds and events: bad

i use (one of the first) ZD cameras, mostly for commercial and personal work.
with the right raw-converter (like raw-developer or LR) I can use the ZD up to about 10 sec. exposures. you migt even be able to get longer exposures with half decent noise. but the less light, the less the files shine - where as canon files keep a certain glow.

if I would be a amateur I would buy the little sigma dp1 with the 28mm and a sigma slr with on or two sharp lenses. mf image quality (no AA-filter an no bayer-sensor) - also with not that many mpixel. perfect for landscape and portraits. more DOF because of the smaler sensor -  for landscape, birds... you dont want the mf´s shallow DOF (in most cases).
 with the money saved, I would travel to where ever in the world good picture could be taken. this might result in better pictures in the end than spending lots of money on cameras.

just one (very different) opinion

stefan

[Justinr]

just one (very different) opinion

Not as exclusive as you may imagine Stefan for I certainly think that Sigma are the dark horse of the dSLR world and if I were to start afresh and reinvest in this format then I would certainly be looking to the make. And yes, you are spot on about  DoF. It is an issue which is why I am following the tilt shift thread with such interest.

Justin.

[MichaelEzra]

I would also like other people who have a ZD comment (Michael Ezra??).
Best, Hrannar
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hrannar,

I used ZD camera in studio and landscape photography.
It is an excellent performer for both, with the following 2 things in mind:

1. firewire issue - I had my ZD's firewire board replaced with a new model (so I was told), and so far firewire works.

2. for landscapes ISO can be a limitation. So as long as you stay under 100 - it is good.

3. I observe a slight green tint softly spead though periphery of the frame, mostly on the left side (can be easily corrected with masking in post)

Absence of AA and availability of optional AA filter is a strong plus.

Dynamic range is trully excellent. I usually overexpose by 1.3 stops and get extremely clean shadows.

Mamiya lenses are excellent and older AF versions are a bargain.

AF focusing speed is very decent.

I did not test ZD with long exposures, so cannot comment.

[Justinr]

When the ZD works it works very well indeed. I strongly doubt that this sort of dynamic range is possible on any dSLR. To have the stonework and the outside area illuminated like this is reward enough to compensate for it's unreliability in general operation. No flash was used and it is straight out of the camera with no manipulation.




Tipperary Cattle Market Aug 08


Justin.

[Dale Allyn]

Hrannar,

I opted to skip the ZD back as I went through a similar process to what you are describing. Some of what you shoot sounds like what some of my photography is geared to and I was concerned about shadow noise on longer exposures, etc. I do believe that much of that can be controlled with careful attention to exposure (avoiding under exposures and following Michael Ezra's technique of shooting at somewhat over-exposed levels), but I was still concerned about moving to MF for certain improvements and then being held back in other areas.

In the end I opted to push myself and went with the Phase One P25+ and I'm happy (and broke). Originally I wanted to budget as you have discussed, and was (am) very attracted to the Mamiya 28, etc. but decided to get the back I wanted (via a special opportunity from someone who exited the format before using this particular back) and build a kit of the pre-"D"  AF lenses first. I think all of my Mamiya lenses together cost less than what I've paid for certain single Canon "L" lenses. I'll add the 45-90 "D" later, but thankfully that has been delayed so the pressure is off for now.

Good luck with your process.

Dale

[hauxon]

Thanks for the helpful comments guys.  I will need to digest this a little longer.  I still think this could work if I use the ZD back within it limits and have a modern 35mm DSLR for other type of shots.  

About the suggested Sigma cameras I can see the point but it wouldn't work for me since I sell big landscape prints and occational full page magazine shot.  I simply need resolution for many of my shots.  I'm getting a Sigma DP1 instead of my Canon G7 for P&S though.

I agree with Justin that Mamiya should put a little effort into developing the ZD further.  They could keep the same sensor (if available) but applying fixes from what has been learned from the last four years of usage and updade it with what technology has brought us, like more speed, bigger LCD and better noise handling.

Thanks again for the help!

Hrannar

[Anders_HK]

Thanks for the helpful comments guys.  I will need to digest this a little longer.  I still think this could work if I use the ZD back within it limits and have a modern 35mm DSLR for other type of shots. 

About the suggested Sigma cameras I can see the point but it wouldn't work for me since I sell big landscape prints and occational full page magazine shot.  I simply need resolution for many of my shots.  I'm getting a Sigma DP1 instead of my Canon G7 for P&S though.

I agree with Justin that Mamiya should put a little effort into developing the ZD further.  They could keep the same sensor (if available) but applying fixes from what has been learned from the last four years of usage and updade it with what technology has brought us, like more speed, bigger LCD and better noise handling.

Thanks again for the help!

Hrannar
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To Hrannar and anyone considering the ZD, as an ex-ZD user that sold my ZD due to the problems it had (mine was ZD camera, same as ZD back), I advise anyone considering the ZD to very thorough search posts of ZDs and ZD problems that have been posted by others and myself here on LL. To the problem I posted early this year under title "ZD has Problem" noone yet has proven opposite. A few weeks ago when speaking to my Mamiya agent they said nothing has yet been done to fix that problem in ZD. The only way 'Mamiya' perhaps has improved on ZD has speculatively been by Phase One trying reduce the problem when reading files by Capture One.

The ZD is an excellent idea. It is a pitty Mamiya has not had sense in making it the problem free product that I very rightfully believe it should have been. Regrettably one need to ask why should Mamiya now spend more money on it after they have joined up with Phase One? I will personally be surpriced if we will see a ZDII, also on basis of my speaking with my agent (although they may not know).

As a complement to a DSLR, why not consider using slide film? A 4x5 will give much more for landscape photography in its control of lens movements. As an amateur one thing I know of digital is that it has cost me lots of $$$. Sometimes I honest ask myself why I did not stay with film! A MFDB will give you a larger DR, but the 1DS Mk3 seem to improve much on what DSLRs offer in that, we shall see for 5D replacement etc. That said, using Aptus 65 after the ZD the step up from ZD is very significant, also in how colors are being pleasingly rendered already when I open at defaults in CS3 (not to mention lack of noise). In my personal opinion, the ZD is a waste of money and it seems many end up selling it. For anyone considring P25 or Aptus 22, do take look at P30 and Aptus 65 that are newer technology and due their crop sensors actually lower priced. Although with an around 22MP digital back the Mamiya 24mm fisheye is an option for very wide. For Aptus 65 I thought the 24mm was too soft.

Or for a DSLR do read up on [a href=\"http://maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm]http://maxmax.com/hot_rod_visible.htm[/url]. There are some posts here on LL per what I recall.

Regards
Anders

[Sami Kulju]

.  Sami I'd still like to see that RAW file is possible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=217585\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Patience, I´ve been on the road and haven´t had access to files...

Sure I´ll send it to You. I hope You have a large mailbox since the .mef file is 34.9 MB and even bigger when attached
I will also send You the Lightroom preset i used, that should help You simulate the picture.

Seriously, if Your main interest is doing nightshots the ZD is not the tool. Neither is Leaf. Both are limited to 30 sec (at least my combos Aptus17+AFD and ZD+AFDII) maximum exposure time.

I took that nightshot last spring to test long exposures and even it´s perfectly OK for my needs, the ZD is really on it´s limits in that.

I found that 50-100 ISO works best with long exposures. That gives You very limited range of apertures with exposure max 30 sec - when really dark.

sami

[Sami Kulju]

... just had a responce from Your mailserver...

message size 50127951 exceeds size limit 28311552 of
    server gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[72.14.221.27]

sami

[mcfoto]

Hi
I have both the 1Ds3 & ZD camera. I just sold the 5D and shoot mostly with the Canon now. For clouds I still use the ZD camera which has a great dynamic range, I use both the ZD & Canon 1Ds3 for clouds now. I do like the MFD format & when it comes to performance the Canon 1Ds3 is outstanding.
Thanks Denis