Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: pindman on March 29, 2008, 11:48:19 am
-
I've retired my Hasselblad 2000 series and am going with the Mamiya AFD. I have 40mm, 110mm, 180mm, and 2x mutar Hasselblad lenses. Total weight is an issue. I understand the convenience advantages of Mamiya lenses, but I'm most interested in optical quality, and have a few questions:
1. How does the Mamiya 105-210mm zoom compare to the fixed focal lengths in that range?
2. How do the Mamiya lenses compare optically to the Zeiss?
It may be worth putting a manual diaphram if there is a visible quality advantage for the Zeiss, but otherwise I think it would make sense to just go with Mamiya.
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with direct experience.
Thanks!
Paul
-
Hi,
The 105-210 is great.
The 55-110 is a little bit of a doubt for me, I have tested the 75-150 when it was just released and loved that but did not fit my shooting style, so I'm now waiting for the 45-90 to replace the 55-110.
A must buy is the 120MM macro that one is stellar in sharpness and contrast.
After that the 105-210 and the 150mm are my favorites.
-
A must buy is the 120MM macro that one is stellar in sharpness and contrast.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185221\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Frank,
If you don't mind me asking, are you thinking of the current one, or the new 'D' version? I wonder are there any significant differences.
Thanks in advance
Jon
PS Loved that last body painting set on POTN.
-
Hi
I use the 55-110 & 35 most of the time. I find the 55-110 @ f 11 to be a very good lens. I love this focal length & would be very interested in the new 45-90. You could keep some of your lenses & use them with an adapter on the Mamiya.
Denis
-
Gidday,
Have a look the reports below.
I use both the Mamiya 55-110mm and Mamiya 105-210mm lenses and I think the resolution is superb with my Aptus 75.
Cheers
Simon
-
All of the old non-D Mamiya lenses I own are excellent (35, 80, 150, 120 macro). I'm waiting to buy the new 45-90 zoom since it focuses much closer than the old 55-110.
-
All of the old non-D Mamiya lenses I own are excellent (35, 80, 150, 120 macro). I'm waiting to buy the new 45-90 zoom since it focuses much closer than the old 55-110.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185258\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doing some fast tests handheld a week ago, I found that the lens to beat is the cheap 80/2.8, which is itself still outresolved by my P45+. I believe the 120/4 is sharp, but if anyone here has compared the other lenses to the 80 I'd be very interested to hear the results.
Edmund
-
Gidday,
Have a look the reports below.
Cheers
Simon
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185256\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Simon,
Thanks for posting those. Funny thing, I was doing some informal resolution testing last week and couldn't see any difference between f11 and f16 on these lenses (and only slight deterioration at f22; P45 on the Mamiya), which sort of confused me for a while (expecting deterioration at f16). Good to see my 'informal testing' wasn't completely Kak! Still surprised they're so good at smaller apertures.
Thanks
Jon
EDIT: Edmund, if I get time tomorrow, I'll do the same with the 80mm..My testing was just with a laser printed PDF of the ISO resolution chart. Not exactly absolute or scientifically precise, but I only wanted a comparison of the different apertures.
PS How did you tell that the lens was outresolved by the P45+?
-
Doing some fast tests handheld a week ago, I found that the lens to beat is the cheap 80/2.8, which is itself still outresolved by my P45+. I believe the 120/4 is sharp, but if anyone here has compared the other lenses to the 80 I'd be very interested to hear the results.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185271\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've also found the 80mm extremely sharp, feels cheap but works beautifully.
-
PS How did you tell that the lens was outresolved by the P45+?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185275\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm saying that because sharpening at infinity still adds a lot of detail (Eiffel tower image).
May be bad reasoning.
The 80 on the Mamiya is significantly better than the 50/1.8 on Canon 1DsIII though, so let's not complain
I just bought an old Planar 110/2 - what I need is look and color, rather than sharpness, anyway.
Edmund
-
I'm saying that because sharpening at infinity still adds a lot of detail (Eiffel tower image).
May be bad reasoning.
The 80 on the Mamiya is significantly better than the 50/1.8 on Canon 1DsIII though, so let's not complain
I just bought an old Planar 110/2 - what I need is look and color, rather than sharpness, anyway.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you compared the Planar directly to the Mamiya 80mm?
Paul
-
Have you compared the Planar directly to the Mamiya 80mm?
Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185301\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mine is being repaired. I tested another sample, which was a joke for sharpness, spectacular CA,, but the look (bokeh) was very nice.
Edmund
-
I've retired my Hasselblad 2000 series and am going with the Mamiya AFD. I have 40mm, 110mm, 180mm, and 2x mutar Hasselblad lenses. Total weight is an issue. I understand the convenience advantages of Mamiya lenses, but I'm most interested in optical quality, and have a few questions:
1. How does the Mamiya 105-210mm zoom compare to the fixed focal lengths in that range?
2. How do the Mamiya lenses compare optically to the Zeiss?
It may be worth putting a manual diaphram if there is a visible quality advantage for the Zeiss, but otherwise I think it would make sense to just go with Mamiya.
I'd appreciate hearing from anyone with direct experience.
Thanks!
Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have most of the Mamiya AFD lenses. The sharpest imho is the 75-150 mm "D". It is better than either the 80 or the 150. It is better than the 55-110 mm. As mentioned by others, it also focusses to 1 meter. It has become my standard lens.
Tied with it is the new 120 mm macro "D". This lens is less versatile of course - but it IS a macro and gives 1:1 images.
The 45 mm is a good lens but I've not compared it directly to anything else. The 35 mm is reputedly a bit soft but mine seems great, certainly at it's sweet spot, f11.
The sharpest WA is the 28 mm "D" lens. It really makes MF wide-angle work way better than DSLR at an equivalent angle. (Roughly 20 mm with P back crop)
Finally the 300 mm APO is outstanding - I can't see any resolution difference from f5.6 to f11.
Often I carry only the 75-150, the 28 and the 300. With the P45+ you can easily crop the 28 mm image to equate to the 35 mm lens with great results.
I do look forward to the 45-90 though. I find these new "D" lenses to be outstanding.
Bill
-
The 80mm f/2.8 is very sharp. The 80mm manual macro is excellent as is the 120 macro (non-digital version). The 150 AFD f/4 is a beautiful lens, nice bokeh too. The 45 AF is good, but the 35 is soft at the edges, which is disappointing. The 35 is the weakest of the Mamiya lenses in my collection, which is unfortunate as I am a wide angle nut. I use a Hassie CF 39MS back on an AFD body.
-
I have recently added the 105-210 and the 45 and both are just outstanding. I also really like the 150. But for that matter I am also really happy with using the 80 and the 210. Then for a real plus is the 80 1.9 manual focus.
I have shot with the 55-110 but it doesn't not add any versatility to what I shoot so I have not purchased one. Next up for me will be the 300.
It all depends on what you need for what you are going to shoot. I guess one of the big advantages of the Mamiya is that you really can't go wrong with lenses.
-
I'm saying that because sharpening at infinity still adds a lot of detail (Eiffel tower image).
May be bad reasoning.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks, Edmund.
Must try that out asap (Good or Bad!)
Jon
-
FWIW, just got my Mamiya and have been playing around with a few lenses. I only have the ZD back at this time, but here's what I can tell you...
My 110 Planar absolutely rocks (second generation F lens), and this is at just about any aperture, even wide open. The Mamiya 200/2.8 APO MF lens is in this league too --- both are stunningly sharp. The 200 negative is it only focuses to 2.5 meters, but it's cheap used. The 110 Planar of course focuses close, to about .75 meter and is NOT cheap.
Going to be testing the 80/2.8 AF directly against the manual focus 80/1.9 later today, but initial images show the 1.9 is superior. I'll report back with my final findings...
The 35 AF and 55-110 AF are both pretty good, but not in the league of the lenses above. To clarify, I'd say the zoom is about as good resolution and distortion as the Canon 24-70/2.8, and the 35 is about as good as the Canon 24 L, so they're good, but not stunning. I would agree with Edmund on the 80 AF as well, and say that these lenses are *not* out-resolving my 22MP back. While I have not done an empirical test to confirm this, my logic is the 110 Planar and 200 APO look so much sharper they probably are out-resolving my sensor. The 80/1.9 may be close, more later...
Have a 50 Planar coming this week so will report back on it...
As an aside, I picked up a scrungy 145 Soft Focus Mamiya. This lens was really cheap, under $100, because it had fungus. I have it at the shop getting cleaned. This will prolly cost me over $200 to get that done right, but still not much invested for a special-use glass. Anyway, I snuck a few shots off before sending it out for the CLA and it looks really promising for say artistic portraiture or still-life, figure, etc... Way nicer effect than any SF filter or CS treatments.
One of the huge benefits of owning a Mamiya system is the range of glass you can mount on it. The other is the fact the FP shutter goes to 1/4000th, so I can actually shoot a lens like the 110 f2 Planar wide open in daylight without having to add an ND filter...
More later!
-
Okay, just finished my not-so-scientific test of the two lenses at all apertures through f11. Simple answer is the AF lens pretty much spanks the 80/1.9.
At medium 2m "people" focusing distance, f2.8, 8 and 11, the 80 AF is clearly superior to the 80/1.9 in center and corner resolution. At f4 and f5.6, center resolution is equal and I suspect both lenses are out-resolving my sensor -- however, the corners of the 1.9 are notably softer than the AF lens at these apertures.
At infinity, there is no contest at any aperture --- the AF lens is superior, clearly out-resolving my sensor at f4 through f11... Note also that at f11 on the f1.9 lens, the negative effects of aperture diffraction are apparent to the point of unusability --- IOW this is an f8 minimum aperture lens, at least my copy...
As for focusing the f1.9 lens at f1.9, I simply used the AF confirmation dot and got good focus. However, for whatever reason, the 80/1.9 only appears to be sharp at f1.9 in the intermediate distances, say 2 through 6 meters. CLoser in or further out, the central area goes soft. So, if you have one, I would suggest it be relegated to the medium "people" distances at f8 and lower. Lastly, and somewhat discouraging, is the f1.9 lens' bokeh --- pretty clumpy and distracting background highlights; I'll take the AF lens at f2.8 over the faster MF lens at all apertures on any day. And I am a bit bummed to have to say that...
Bottom line is if you want a fast, beautiful-rendering lens for people, get the Hassy 110 Planar F and a good quality Hassy to Mamiya adapter and work a step further back than you're used to working...
Cheers,
-
Jack - the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 AF peaks at ~F5.6; anything beyond F5.6 and it's a trade-off between DOF vs diffraction. With the 12mm tube, it's a great a close-up lens for product shots.
-
PS: Here is a shot from the Planar wide open at f2, near the minimum focus distance. These are posted "as shot" directly form the camera, no added sharpening, exposure or color adjustments. (It really pops if yo add a bit of post sharpening, even to this little jpeg crop!) FWIW, this flower is about 30 or 40mm across, and this was manually focused on the stamen using the Mamiya's electronic focus confirmation dot:
click thumb for 1200 pixel jpeg of full image -- talk about buttery bokeh!:
(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/flowerat1200px_thumb.jpg) (http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1544&c=79)
Here is a 100% crop -- again, click for full size. Look at that thin DOF!:
(http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/files/2/flowercrop_thumb.jpg) (http://forum.getdpi.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1545&c=79)
Cheers,
-
Jack - the Mamiya 80mm 2.8 AF peaks at ~F5.6; anything beyond F5.6 and it's a trade-off between DOF vs diffraction. With the 12mm tube, it's a great a close-up lens for product shots.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185453\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Could be... However, on my lower-rez sensor, the images look as good at f8 adn nearly as good at f11. Also, I noted sharper corners on my copy at f8...
Cheers,
-
i know the mamiya bodies can take the hasselblad lenses but can it also take the contax or pentax 645 lenses..I'm thinking here the 35mm Af lenses of both those cameras are pretty great so could substitute the weak mamiya 35mm?
Marc
-
i know the mamiya bodies can take the hasselblad lenses but can it also take the contax or pentax 645 lenses..I'm thinking here the 35mm Af lenses of both those cameras are pretty great so could substitute the weak mamiya 35mm?
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
IIRC, both of those systems activate the aperture via electrical contacts on the lenses, so even if you made an appropriate adapter that could focus at infinity, you'd only be able to use them wide open. The bigger issue with adapting lenses across cameras is the sensor to mounting flange distance: you need to be able to get to the same distance as the original lens manufacturer INCLUDING any extension from the adapter or you cannot focus on infinity. THis is why most adapters convert lenses form larger formats down to cameras of smaller format...
Cheers,
-
Jack,
I would love to hear your experience with the 80/1.9. I have been trying to use one for sometime and unless stopped down quite a bit, it's an absolute disaster getting the thing manually focused on the intended content.
I want to shoot people wide open with it and can't get any frames crisp where desired even with the viewfinder magnifier.
I have a Bill Maxwell screen on order now for 2 months and can't wait until that thing comes. Bill is running WAY BEHIND on his orders. He qoted me 3 weeks at most originally. Mamiya's screens are hugely insufficient for critical focusing.
Optically the 80/1.9 seems solid. My 80/2.8 AF is usable but doesn't impress me as much as others here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I recently made the move to the Mamiya screen Type C, the microprism center. Helps tremendously with the 120 macro (manual focus) and the AF lenses because it shows you WHAT the lens has focussed on. With the magnifier I'm now much better equipped to judge sharpness.
My eyes are over 60....
Bill
-
I've thought about trying it but there is no off the shelf type C screen for the AFD that has the digital back frame etched. I'm hoping the $350 Maxwell screen works as it's touted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
True - I continue to use the "underlay" that P1 provides.
Bill
-
I have found that the 80AF 2.8 softens off when you go wider than 5.6. I shot some paintings recently on a ZD and the softening was quite noticeable. Otherwise, it is a really good lens.
I also have a 45mm AF lens, which I consider excellent.
The 105-210 that I have is great, too, but quite heavy and unwieldy - unless you are shooting flash it is unsuitable for hand holding, and it needs a substantial tripod.
Very impressed from having used the 120 F.4, and is on my must buy list.
Nick Kreisler
www.viewfinderdigitisation.com.au
-
i know the mamiya bodies can take the hasselblad lenses but can it also take the contax or pentax 645 lenses..I'm thinking here the 35mm Af lenses of both those cameras are pretty great so could substitute the weak mamiya 35mm?
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185482\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
no pentax 645 lenses on the mamiya. I tried for a long time to connect my pentax 35 af to the ZD but it just doesnt work. the camera mount to lens mount-distance (while theoreticaly big enough) is just to short to get a homemade adapter between the two mounts. perhaps some super ingeneering could create an adapter. I know mr. zörkendorfer tried too, but couldnt come up with an "sellable" solution.
stefan
-
I have the Mamiya 80mm, 55m, 35mm, 120mm Macro and a 45mm Hartblei Super rotator all used on a ZD camera. The 80mm and 120mm macro are boith super sharp, the 55mm close behind, and the 35mm decent if not exceptional. the Hartblei used carefully, is also sharp but has some asymmetric CA that is difficult to eliminate. The only other lens with significant CA is the 35mm, but as that is symmetrical its easier to control.
The great thing about the Mamiya mount is the vast array of inexpensive older lenses for occasional use where you don't want to spend a fortune on marginally better exotic megabucks glass.
I do so hate hassy and their conceited closed system with overpriced lenses. Thanks goodness for Mamiya / Phase One and the Hy6.
Quentin
-
I have the Mamiya 80mm, 55m, 35mm, 120mm Macro and a 45mm Hartblei Super rotator all used on a ZD camera. The 80mm and 120mm macro are boith super sharp, the 55mm close behind, and the 35mm decent if not exceptional. the Hartblei used carefully, is also sharp but has some asymmetric CA that is difficult to eliminate. The only other lens with significant CA is the 35mm, but as that is symmetrical its easier to control.
The great thing about the Mamiya mount is the vast array of inexpensive older lenses for occasional use where you don't want to spend a fortune on marginally better exotic megabucks glass.
I do so hate hassy and their conceited closed system with overpriced lenses. Thanks goodness for Mamiya / Phase One and the Hy6.
Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not too sure about the older glass being as wonderful. I have a MF 45mm 2.8 which does leave me with distortion problems, especially when used inside and these things become obvious through strangely angled ceilings etc. I hate the idea of having to sort things out later in the computer but I fear that some sort of correctional software is going to be be needed with it.
I also have a 50mm shift lens which I snapped up when looking around. Haven't actually used it yet although a couple of jobs are on the horizon. Anyone else tried it?
The trouble with Hasselblad is that yes they do have a conceited view of the world but are 'oh so very nice' about it when you speak to them at shows etc. I really can't get cross with them.
Justin.
-
Not too sure about the older glass being as wonderful
I also have a 50mm shift lens which I snapped up when looking around. Haven't actually used it yet although a couple of jobs are on the horizon. Anyone else tried it?
Justin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have one, it's nice but no exceptional. Doesn't shift far enough on the long axis for real urban architecture. A WIDE shift lens would be really nice for the Mamiya, and equivalent for the 24mm Canon. Of course, the other MF SLR platforms have the same issue or worse.
Edmund
-
I have one, it's nice but no exceptional. Doesn't shift far enough on the long axis for real urban architecture. A WIDE shift lens would be really nice for the Mamiya, and equivalent for the 24mm Canon. Of course, the other MF SLR platforms have the same issue or worse.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps with the many solid shift cameras around...cambo, silvestri, etc etc..combined with one or more wide digital large format lenses and the back means the need for shift lenses on the mfdslr's is not that essential.
Certainly this method means a bit extra expence over the mf shift lenses (or perhaps not given the pricing of new wide mf lenses) and two bodies but for work requiring shifts the quality should be better due to the nature of the lenses.
Marc
-
Who's talking about better here - convenience is the issue. Shift on an SLR means you can take handheld or tripod mounted shots very quickly. Maybe if we get decent SLR-quality liveview we could do the same one day with an Alpa, but until then there is no replacement for SLR convenience, just as there is no replacement for the non-retrofocus quality on the dedicated bodies.
Edmund
Perhaps with the many solid shift cameras around...cambo, silvestri, etc etc..combined with one or more wide digital large format lenses and the back means the need for shift lenses on the mfdslr's is not that essential.
Certainly this method means a bit extra expence over the mf shift lenses (or perhaps not given the pricing of new wide mf lenses) and two bodies but for work requiring shifts the quality should be better due to the nature of the lenses.
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185714\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Who's talking about better here - convenience is the issue. Shift on an SLR means you can take handheld or tripod mounted shots very quickly. Maybe if we get decent SLR-quality liveview we could do the same one day with an Alpa, but until then there is no replacement for SLR convenience, just as there is no replacement for the non-retrofocus quality on the dedicated bodies.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, if you are familiar with the use of a view camera, then using a shift camera is not all that inconvenient. Yes, you may need to take a teaser shot or two to get everything lined up perfectly, but in the end you're going to be on a tripod anyway to insure camera level and the quality of the resulting image is probably worth the added "inconvenience" if you are needing shift to begin with... And you are probably double-checking the image for perfect focus anyway, not necessarily insured with an SLR. Lastly, the added IC required for the shift lens means you are probably better off with a dedicated shift camera that can utilize the larger IC LF/MF digital lenses as well.
Cheers,
-
Bill,
Does the Phase One underlay cause a shift in metered exposures since it's a sort of a neutral density material? I shoot an Aptus. Leaf provides a new AFD screen etched with the digital back frame border.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=185595\")
John,
The Phase One underlay should not effect metering with you AFD. Some photographers do cut out the center of the underlay to make sure that their metering isn't effected.
Chris Lawery
Sales Manager
[email protected]
[a href=\"http://www.captureintegration.com]Capture Integration, Phase One Dealer of the Year[/url]
877-217-9870 | National
404-234-5195 | Cell
Sign up for our Newsletter (http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101868815210&p=oi) | Read Our Latest Newsletter (http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/)
-
Who's talking about better here - convenience is the issue. Shift on an SLR means you can take handheld or tripod mounted shots very quickly. Maybe if we get decent SLR-quality liveview we could do the same one day with an Alpa, but until then there is no replacement for SLR convenience, just as there is no replacement for the non-retrofocus quality on the dedicated bodies.
Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185721\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes I was talking better simply in terms of image quality.
Of course a dslr with shift lens is more convenient than a shift camera, just as perhaps a 35mm dslr is more convenient than a mf dslr with the wider shift lenses available, etc.
But overall for me jobs / shots requiring shift at top quality, i.e. non 35mm dslr, etc allow the extra bit of time for using a shift camera...just my experience of course.
Marc
-
Actually, if you are familiar with the use of a view camera, then using a shift camera is not all that inconvenient. Yes, you may need to take a teaser shot or two to get everything lined up perfectly, but in the end you're going to be on a tripod anyway to insure camera level and the quality of the resulting image is probably worth the added "inconvenience" if you are needing shift to begin with... And you are probably double-checking the image for perfect focus anyway, not necessarily insured with an SLR. Lastly, the added IC required for the shift lens means you are probably better off with a dedicated shift camera that can utilize the larger IC LF/MF digital lenses as well.
Cheers,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185728\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Out of interest Jack, knowing your lf background, are you looking at ways of using your zd back on a view/shift camera?
Marc
-
Out of interest Jack, knowing your lf background, are you looking at ways of using your zd back on a view/shift camera?
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185768\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course I'm investigating it, but nothing definitive yet. Will keep you posted...
Cheers,
-
Bill,
Does the Phase One underlay cause a shift in metered exposures since it's a sort of a neutral density material? I shoot an Aptus. Leaf provides a new AFD screen etched with the digital back frame border.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John, if it does I'm not aware of it. The underlay for the AFD II is totally clear except for the black edge lines and I can't imagine they would affect exposure in any measurable way.
Bill
-
Worried by earlier postings in this thread I went out to try the 50mm shift lens the other day and must admit to wondering as to why I had bothered with it, until I saw the results on the monitor rather than LCD. It really did produce some impressive photo's and is certainly a worthwhile addition to the armoury. One remaining concern is that the colours looked a little washed out compared to the 80mm, but the building I was shooting was not the most psychedelic so I best refrain from final judgement on that point for now.
Justin.
-
no pentax 645 lenses on the mamiya. I tried for a long time to connect my pentax 35 af to the ZD but it just doesnt work. the camera mount to lens mount-distance (while theoreticaly big enough) is just to short to get a homemade adapter between the two mounts. perhaps some super ingeneering could create an adapter. I know mr. zörkendorfer tried too, but couldnt come up with an "sellable" solution.
stefan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185621\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
An adapter to use Pentax 645 lenses on the Mamiya flange was available occasionally on ebay in photography / lenses & filters / lens accessories / adapters & mounts
As Stefan mentioned, it is really thin and has a clever design to deal with the aperture lever.
Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work completely with the current crop of Pentax lenses -- the automatic aperture mechanism may need to be modified by a camera technician before it will stop down. When I give up hope of a digital 645 Pentax, then the lenses will go to the repair shop.
Good luck finding an adapter.
Rick
-
Back to the ZD back on a body with movements comment, what has kept mamiya from bringing this to market? This would open a lot of doors for the semi-pro / advanced amateur market.
-
Back to the ZD back on a body with movements comment, what has kept mamiya from bringing this to market? This would open a lot of doors for the semi-pro / advanced amateur market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=187531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I *suspect* they are dedicated because like Hasselblad with he H3D, Mamiya really wants to sell their cameras and lenses, not just a low-margin back...
The interesting thought here is folks talking about digital MF back-up, and the cost of doubling up on body and back for the big boys is expensive. Maybe a Mamiya-compatible P45+ or Leaf 75S plus a second AFD-II body (about $2K) and a ZD back at $7K makes some sense. Better than a 1Ds3 for just a little more money than the Canon body alone, and by the time you add enough Canon glass for back-up, you are there and already have the glass...
-
I *suspect* they are dedicated because like Hasselblad with he H3D, Mamiya really wants to sell their cameras and lenses, not just a low-margin back...
The interesting thought here is folks talking about digital MF back-up, and the cost of doubling up on body and back for the big boys is expensive. Maybe a Mamiya-compatible P45+ or Leaf 75S plus a second AFD-II body (about $2K) and a ZD back at $7K makes some sense. Better than a 1Ds3 for just a little more money than the Canon body alone, and by the time you add enough Canon glass for back-up, you are there and already have the glass...
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=187637\")
On paper the ZD as backup seems like a good investment, but when you factor in the ability to tether, the lower iso and smaller buffer (even though they plan to enlarge the buffer), your pretty much locked in to a 200 iso back that only works well in portable mode.
You can get Phase or Leaf backs in demo or used, that are close to a new ZD and will do much more and not disrupt your workflow.
[a href=\"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/demo-back-inventory/]http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-on...back-inventory/[/url]
https://digitaltransitions.com/newslett...07_3/index.html (https://digitaltransitions.com/newsletters/10_07_3/index.html)
I've even seen used aptus 22's selling for under 8k and I assume hasselblad backs are also available at demo prices.
Backups are one are that medium format should address with a workable plan, like if you buy a new whatever you get the previous generation at a no interest lease plan. After all the makers and dealers have these things paid for and setting on shelves.
JR