Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: design_freak on August 30, 2011, 06:23:14 pm
-
http://www.mamiya-usa.com/landing/files/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf
-
This was an interesting test and well presented. I liked the practical way the test was performed.
I was surprised the Mamiya RZ lens did so well as the 110mm and 150mm are not the best performing lens in the RZ range. Would it be right to assume that the more modern RZ lens with the floating elements would do even better ( eg 50mm uld, 140 macro etc )
-
Have I misunderstood or was this test done with all the lenses wide open?
Not terribly interesting if so (given that they would typically be used at least a couple of stops down from this). Most people shooting medium format want to know how comparatively sharp lenses are at their best...not fully open.
-
yes, I was looking for the aperture value for the test data too. Since the lenses were not mounted one would have to assume these were wide open.
-
If anyone is looking for one of these "Pearl Optical RPT-15A Resolution-Power-Test-Projectors" one is available on ebay for $399 euros link (http://bit.ly/riW6c5).
Lance
-
It says all the lenses were wide open and focused at infinity.
It doesn't say a lot, but I have tested most of these lenses myself, and I totally
agree that the 80mm LS is the best of the tested lenses.
Henrik
-
Henrick I've tested the mamiya 80 LS too with the aptus 12. Its not bad at all, however have you tested the schneider 80mm xenotar (either f/2.0 or f/2.8)?
-
People who use the Hasselblad HC 100mm/f2.2 lens as their main lens will look at this test and say,
oh really, the HC 150mm and the HC 80mm are better lenses than my 100mm...
they will have a good laugh and continue to use their 100mm lens...
-
Henrick I've tested the mamiya 80 LS too with the aptus 12. Its not bad at all, however have you tested the schneider 80mm xenotar (either f/2.0 or f/2.8)?
Hi Eric!
No I have not. They are both just for Rollei?
Henrik
-
People who use the Hasselblad HC 100mm/f2.2 lens as their main lens will look at this test and say,
oh really, the HC 150mm and the HC 80mm are better lenses than my 100mm...
they will have a good laugh and continue to use their 100mm lens...
Completely agreed. I mean, this is almost a joke.
And also note that it's being tested purely as a lens without DAC corrections. I mean, it's no secret that Hasselblad uses DAC to pull out everything from the lenses possible. In fact it's a proud fact. You'd be hard-pressed to beat the HC100 2.2 or even the HC35-90 if there was a competing zoom lens.
-
People who use the Hasselblad HC 100mm/f2.2 lens as their main lens will look at this test and say,
oh really, the HC 150mm and the HC 80mm are better lenses than my 100mm...
they will have a good laugh and continue to use their 100mm lens...
Exactly. I have all 3 of them. Maybe my eyes are wrong... after putting over 75K of shots per year on these lenses where about 75% is on the 100. Hasselblad could have just welded the 100 on my body...
-
Perhaps the point of the post was to bring up the fact that Mamiya's are usually under rated by most and can hold their own against other well regarded lenses?
Marc
-
Not sure about that. Pretty much every test I have read over the last 15 years tried to show that Hasselblad lenses were outperformed by Mamiya lenses.
I have not seen that many people claiming that Mamiya lenses are bad. A myfirst Sony type of body, shutter lag that allows a shot of espresso or even lenses that fall apart when looking at them or make so much noise you could seriously hurt your hearing but optically? I think most people acknowledge Mamiya makes damn sharp lenses and the LS lenses seem to be even better.
These tests appear mostly to have come from some sort of weird inferiority complex. To me it appears that way.
Anyway. The outcome of this test with regard to the differences between the HC80/100/150 are totally different than my own experience from daily use.
-
Completely agreed. I mean, this is almost a joke.
Brendan, the testing methodology looks perfectly sound. How could it be "a joke"? Rather than dismiss the scientific method outright (it really bugs me when people do that - climate-change deniers and the like), wouldn't you rather suggest that the tested random sample HC100 lens could have been drawn from the "poorer" side of the sample distribution? Or perhaps the lens is very dependent on DAC corrections (personally I'd see that as a negative, but if you only ever use DAC-aware software it won't matter to you). I'd settle for either of those Hasselblad-face-saving interpretations. It satisfies Occam's razor, leaves everyone happy with what they have, and gives the test the respect it deserves.
People who use the Hasselblad HC 100mm/f2.2 lens as their main lens will look at this test and say,
oh really, the HC 150mm and the HC 80mm are better lenses than my 100mm...
they will have a good laugh and continue to use their 100mm lens...
JV, I say exactly the same to you as I did to Brendan.
Exactly. I have all 3 of them. Maybe my eyes are wrong... after putting over 75K of shots per year on these lenses where about 75% is on the 100. Hasselblad could have just welded the 100 on my body...
Dustbak, ditto. Nothing wrong with your eyes; you either have a better sample or the lens really needs its DAC support, that's all.
Ray
-
If the test was carried out fully open at infinity then it doesn't tell us much at all!
Especially as HC lenses are optimised in the nearer field - the field that is most used.
Perhaps we would see somewhat different results if it was repeated at 3-4m at f8?
A comprehensive and fair test would have done so to give us the true impression of how each lens performs at a given set of factors.
Naturally it contradicts our own findings. ;).
David
-
If the test was carried out fully open at infinity then it doesn't tell us much at all!
It does - it tells us how the lenses perform wide open at infinity. As would be used in astrophotography, for instance.
Especially as HC lenses are optimised in the nearer field - the field that is most used.
Holy crap! You're kidding me? Remind me to never buy a Hasselblad H system.
[Did I mention I do astrophotography? ;) ]
I really am surprised by this. I postulated two "excuses" for the HC lens relative performance above; now it seems I must withdraw them.
Naturally it contradicts our own findings. ;).
Are these findings published anywhere?
Ray
-
Yeah, well you know.... What's important to Astrophotographwrs is important to the core demographic of MF manufacturers. :rolleyes:
I agree with David, this really proves nothing. And I'm calling the B.S. Flag that not a single Hassy lens outperformed a Mamiya lens.
Ray, enjoy your tall glass of Kool aid.
-
I once heard a report on a new study that revealed that walnuts have incredible health benefits. It all sounded great and I was about to go out and buy some until I realized that this 'scientific' study was paid for by the walnut growers association. I'm not saying these tests are invalid, and as someone who does test a lot, I know how hard it is to satisfy the internet forum community. It's always good to know if there are any vested interests in tests, and who the sponsors are, as well as what wasn't tested and why. I don't know, maybe the lenses were chosen totally randomly, but why take new mamiya lenses and compare them to ones from a rental house (presumably with unknown used condition)? I guess in the case of the pearl projector it would have been difficult to test stopped down - but as people have pointed out what does that prove unless you are planning to shoot wide open at infinity a lot? And if a camera system was developed with DAC as part of the design, is it a fair comparison to test without? What camera system in the future is not going to take advantage of DAC?
There are some fantastic mamiya lenses especially if you count the 7 and RZ series, and I don't think anyone would argue that the lenses for the 645 are not sharp. But would anyone expect less? The parts of the optics that need to be tested and compared are the way the lens draws, near far focus optimization, distortion, build quality and operation. I think most of the criticism of the mamiya glass stem from the appearance or cheap feel of the 645 lenses, or its carryover from the body (which unlike the lenses does deserve criticism).
-
It does - it tells us how the lenses perform wide open at infinity. As would be used in astrophotography, for instance.
Holy crap! You're kidding me? Remind me to never buy a Hasselblad H system.
[Did I mention I do astrophotography? ;) ]
I really am surprised by this. I postulated two "excuses" for the HC lens relative performance above; now it seems I must withdraw them.
Are these findings published anywhere?
Ray
You are the CEO of Hasselblad and commission a survey to find out how many of our customers also indulge in astro photography.
The result comes back to less than 1%. You tell our lens designer to....
You see my point.
Anyway, perhaps this technical article will provide an insight...
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/media/1663143/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf
David
-
I use my Hasselblad HC 100 more than my HC 150, but I absolutely love the 150 more.
-
I heve been through the Leica factory in Solms and they do put lenses through a projector and test them. must have some relevance to this. Frankly I am not surprised at all on the LS lenses and the 150 D regardless if they are better or worse than Hassy is meaningless but I shoot these lenses and they are stellar. Not sure about this particular test but not surprised for a second the author thinks they are good. I do . LOL
-
Guy,
I would think in a production environment, a quick test is all that's needed to know if a lens is meeting the standard like the rest or not and such a projector would be a good visual tool. That's a lot different than comparing several lenses from different makers in different focal lengths, at varied aperture and focal distance settings. We are just saying you can't conclude anything about the lenses other than wide open at infinity. They may behave much differently stopped down some or focused up close eg - studio settings. Also while both might be sharp, one might have nice bokeh and color.
-
I agree just found it very interesting when we walked into that area and where projecting the lens looking for certain things in the projection. Technically i have no idea what they where looking for or not, just that i have seen it in the factory and obviously has some bearing on deliver of that lens. Certainly not how I would be testing a lens on its own or against another one. I would go shoot the darn thing at most likely its working aperture. But I'm a hands on tester and don't buy much into some of these tests like DXO I still don't get it as who cares what the raw data says its the processed data in my mind is what I am going to deliver. But hey that is another can of worms and I am not getting into that can either. I care about what my final results end of story for me.
-
I couldn't agree more. Even a revered lenses like the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 is a whole different lens at f2. You buy an f1.4 lens so you CAN shoot sharp at f2.
For medium format, no lens is made to be used wide open, that aperture is for focusing.
Please.
-
Guy,
The projector used to test the lens is a very powerful light projector, usually even cooled down with water. The lens is fixed at the front of it, absolutely parallel to projection wall. There is a translucent test chart placed in-between the light source and the lens to be tested. This lens chart is a normal resolution chart with pairs of lines of different sizes and in different directions (tangential and sagittal). The light is projected on the chart, then through the lens and finally captured on a white wall where one can check the resolution of this lens, in the image center to the edge of the IC, in both directions, tangential and sagittal. The smallest pair of lines which can be resolved (seen with the human eyes as 2 separate black lines) is giving the resolution.
Thierry
I agree just found it very interesting when we walked into that area and where projecting the lens looking for certain things in the projection. Technically i have no idea what they where looking for or not, just that i have seen it in the factory and obviously has some bearing on deliver of that lens. Certainly not how I would be testing a lens on its own or against another one
-
Guy,
The projector used to test the lens is a very powerful light projector, usually even cooled down with water. The lens is fixed at the front of it, absolutely parallel to projection wall. There is a translucent test chart placed in-between the light source and the lens to be tested. This lens chart is a normal resolution chart with pairs of lines of different sizes and in different directions (tangential and sagittal). The light is projected on the chart, then through the lens and finally captured on a white wall where one can check the resolution of this lens, in the image center to the edge of the IC, in both directions, tangential and sagittal. The smallest pair of lines which can be resolved (seen with the human eyes as 2 separate black lines) is giving the resolution.
Thierry
Thanks Thierry that is what it was looking like was testing with a lens resolution chart. I thought it was a interesting way to see what the lens was doing. I guess checking alignment and lens resolution of each lens before shipping , it was close to the end of the production line. I thought it was a pretty cool device.
-
Hi,
Lenses tend to be pretty similar once they are becoming diffraction limited...
Best regards
Erik
I couldn't agree more. Even a revered lenses like the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 is a whole different lens at f2. You buy an f1.4 lens so you CAN shoot sharp at f2.
For medium format, no lens is made to be used wide open, that aperture is for focusing.
Please.
-
Well that's 5 minutes of my life I can never get back 8). Possibly the most useless test I have ever read - lenses not used as intended and without software corrections Hasselblad have designed in to keep down weight. I also assume the Hassy 50mm is the old version, not the new one, which is a complete redesign.
-
Just as a side note (or two):
Lens corrections do not increase resolution or sharpness
When the HC150, 80 and 50 were introduced there were no lens corrections available for them (in ANY software) so to say that they were designed with that in mind is a bit misleading
Back to Saturday's programme ;)
-
Just as a side note (or two):
Lens corrections do not increase resolution or sharpness
When the HC150, 80 and 50 were introduced there were no lens corrections available for them (in ANY software) so to say that they were designed with that in mind is a bit misleading
Back to Saturday's programme ;)
+1
-
When the HC150, 80 and 50 were introduced there were no lens corrections available for them (in ANY software) so to say that they were designed with that in mind is a bit misleading
Obviously true, it does make me question though what software like Capture One and Phocus exactly add when they say they perform lens corrections...
-
if we test the lens, it should evaluate its optical properties. This gives us a picture of what equipment we have. Secondly, this will allow for thorough assessment and make any comparison. In this way we can compare each lens: Mamiya, Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss. Of course I agree that the software corrections are good and help improve the image quality. But let us not be mad, we can not speak in such a case, the lens is better because the manufacturer has a better digital correction. In this case we can talk about comparing entire systems, rather than optical element which is the lens. It's two cents from my side.
-
Hi,
"Digital corrections" essentially eliminate distortion and lateral chromatic aberration. The latter would influence sharpness but the digital correction itself will induce some loss of resolution as it uses interpolation to remap pixels.
A lens that is well corrected at full aperture normally also works well stopped down and most lenses will become diffraction limited somewhere about f/8. A better corrected lens becomes diffraction limited at a larger aperture.
The test indicates that the tested Mamiya lenses are on par with Hasselblad HC lenses. There are very few comparable MTF tests published on Mamiya and Hasselblad lenses. Old "Photodo" published tests of some Mamiya lenses. Those tests were done at the Hasselblad factory, by the same guy who leads the lens designs of the HC lenses. At that time the Mamiya lenses were noticeably better then the Zeiss lenses for the classic blads. The rangefinder lenses were even better.
Present HC lenses seem to have better MTF data than the old Zeiss lenses. Another difference is that the HC lenses are designed to keep sharpness at closer distances compared to the Zeiss lenses. Some lenses are better than others. Interestingly "Diglloyd" tested the HC 100mm f/2.2 and found it to have a nice bokeh for portrait work but lacking in edge sharpness for landscape work. His test is here: http://diglloyd.com/prem/prot/DAP/HasselbladH4D/examples-100mm.html
Now, we need to keep in mind that there are sample variations. Lens designers use MTF a lot, but only a subsample of MTF data is published, the ones for correct focus at infinity. At closer range some parts of the image will normally be out of focus and the drawing of out of focus images becomes important. Highly corrected lenses may have different and less pleasant bokeh than less well corrected lenses.
Best regards
Erik
if we test the lens, it should evaluate its optical properties. This gives us a picture of what equipment we have. Secondly, this will allow for thorough assessment and make any comparison. In this way we can compare each lens: Mamiya, Leica, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss. Of course I agree that the software corrections are good and help improve the image quality. But let us not be mad, we can not speak in such a case, the lens is better because the manufacturer has a better digital correction. In this case we can talk about comparing entire systems, rather than optical element which is the lens. It's two cents from my side.
-
nothing wrong with an test wide open. its ok to shoot buildings or landscapes at f8 or smaller, but shoot anything that breathes - like most of advertising subjects, then you need to shoot with faster lens settings. Especially with the lame ISO ratings of these backs (except maybe the pentax or p30+), I'm finding I need to shoot at faster than f4 to even get a shot.
paul
-
You are the CEO of Hasselblad and commission a survey to find out how many of our customers also indulge in astro photography.
The result comes back to less than 1%. You tell our lens designer to....
You see my point.
Anyway, perhaps this technical article will provide an insight...
http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/media/1663143/the_evolution_of_lenses.pdf
David
But it might come back as a large percent shooting landscape. My field is aerial, I need decent far field performance. With Canon at least it's not lens resolution that lets it down, it's the AF not always getting infinity. That and the odd effect that anything faster than about 1/1600th of a second looks to induce softer images. I can't think I would sweat to much about a real World gnats whisker of lens performance between brands. If what you are using Hassy or Mamiya is doing it for you, why worry about what someone else thinks or gets. You can bet that it's swings and roundabouts, if it looks sharper it might be at the expense of gradation or distortion, photography has always been give and take, get it at one end lose it at the other.
Kevin.
www.treewithoutabird.com
-
on a slightly different note regarding the article david linked to (personally was not aware of this and found it quite interesting):
it appears that CZ lenses "always" were optimized for infinity - as opposed to i.e. HC designs.
anybody in the know knows if that optimization for infinity was credo also for (all) other MF / 35mm glass producers?
Pentax, Mamiya, Bronica, etc etc. respectively canon - FD? EF? Nikon?
just curious,
cheers,
r
-
Obviously true, it does make me question though what software like Capture One and Phocus exactly add when they say they perform lens corrections...
Edge Sharpness in C1 does not perform a miracle. It just sharpens the edges, the middle, and the center of the frame differently. It does so through some proprietary algorithms but from my experimentation it seems to be roughly the same as progressively increasing the radius and amount of the unsharp mask being applied.
But importantly it's many many times faster to turn up a slider marked "Sharpness Falloff Correction" then to first process the image (losing all advantages of a raw workflow), open in Photoshop, duplicate the background layer several times, apply several different unsharp masks (doing it on one layer will risk really ugly ghosts of halos), and then blend them together to create a progressive amount of sharpening. Even if you did an action or script in PS it's still tons faster to do in C1 via a single slider (and you don't have to leave raw).
Plus you can copy/paste the adjustment to several hundred files shot with the same lens in literally a few seconds.
It does NOT create detail that didn't exist - nothing can do that. It DOES bring out the best in the file - and with virtually zero effort.
Forgive a bit of over-simplification: really it is a continuous change but for the purpose of simple explanation we'll say edge/middle/center
Doug Peterson (e-mail Me) (doug@captureintegration.com)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/our-company/newsletters/") | RSS Feed (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2008/08/11/rss-feeds/")
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/phase-one/buy-capture-one/")
Masters Series Workshop:
New England Landscape - Fall Color (Oct 5-8) (http://"http://www.captureintegration.com/2011/06/30/nelandscape/")
-
..to build on the information from Doug Peterson and Eric Kaffehr...
The advantage of having the digital lens corrections is to compensate for the design considerations for manufacturing limitations: a perfect lens can be designed but the real kick in the pants comes when evaluating the substantial increase in cost to produce the finished assembly, so the designers and the lens crafters and the business operations must all agree on what can be produced at a given cost that the market will bear. I do not feel it is reasonable to have a price of $16,425 for a perfect 100mm f/2.2 and I suspect neither do most readers of this forum.
Since the lens performance is known at each aperture and iteration of the focal distance (moving the lens elements), the lens corrections are able to get us to that "perfect" lens performance by way of a polynomial function (calculations that take milliseconds thanks to faster processors) ...and at a cost the market will bear.
Incidentally, Hasselblad HC lenses record the precise lens position at capture in the file metadata explicitly for this calculation.
So, to evaluate a lens alone is to perform a portion of the test suitable for comparison, it is incomplete; similar to licking the dough from the spoon when preparing a batch of cookies - it gives a sense of how the cookies may taste, but not a complete comparison to the final result.
Who wants cookies?
John
-
..to build on the information from Doug Peterson and Eric Kaffehr...
The advantage of having the digital lens corrections is to compensate for the design considerations for manufacturing limitations: a perfect lens can be designed but the real kick in the pants comes when evaluating the substantial increase in cost to produce the finished assembly, so the designers and the lens crafters and the business operations must all agree on what can be produced at a given cost that the market will bear. I do not feel it is reasonable to have a price of $16,425 for a perfect 100mm f/2.2 and I suspect neither do most readers of this forum.
Since the lens performance is known at each aperture and iteration of the focal distance (moving the lens elements), the lens corrections are able to get us to that "perfect" lens performance by way of a polynomial function (calculations that take milliseconds thanks to faster processors) ...and at a cost the market will bear.
Incidentally, Hasselblad HC lenses record the precise lens position at capture in the file metadata explicitly for this calculation.
So, to evaluate a lens alone is to perform a portion of the test suitable for comparison, it is incomplete; similar to licking the dough from the spoon when preparing a batch of cookies - it gives a sense of how the cookies may taste, but not a complete comparison to the final result.
Who wants cookies?
John
In summary, there is no method to examine the lens, at least as to compare lenses from different manufacturers today. Since there is no authoritative method. The proposal does not make sense to do any tests, because they are not in the slightest way relevant. How to investigate whether the lens has been corrected to better than the other. In addition, manufacturers continue to refine these algorithms. Because of that, even if you managed to get to the method, it is also such a test would not make sense because it would become quickly outdated. Does this make sense?
-
You're killing me. I'm on a reduced calorie budget and my next calorie allotment isn't for four more hours.
Mmmmmm cooookies.
-
Hi,
MTF is the accepted measure for designing and testing lenses. Problem is that a real set of MTF data would be very hard to interpret. What we normally see is MTF data for 10, 20, and 40 cycles per millimeter, but it may also be 10/30, 5/10/20 or 20/40/60. The MTF values normally shown are calculated for infinity but hey could also be measured, normally at infinity. MTFs may be measured with illuminant D65, A or even monochromatic light. A full set of MTF curves would cover different focusing distances and also different amount of defocus.
A lens having "better" MTF at infinity and will normally be a sharper lens than one having "lesser" MTF, and those data have real world relevance.
Most lenses get diffraction limited around f/8 or f/16 anyway. Any lens that needs to be stopped down further may serve better as an exclusive paper weight, unless it is mounted on a large format film camera.
Best regards
Erik
In summary, there is no method to examine the lens, at least as to compare lenses from different manufacturers today. Since there is no authoritative method. The proposal does not make sense to do any tests, because they are not in the slightest way relevant. How to investigate whether the lens has been corrected to better than the other. In addition, manufacturers continue to refine these algorithms. Because of that, even if you managed to get to the method, it is also such a test would not make sense because it would become quickly outdated. Does this make sense?
-
Obviously true, it does make me question though what software like Capture One and Phocus exactly add when they say they perform lens corrections...
Since you asked, in the case of Capture One:
Lens Cast Correction (Auto)
Equalized Scene Illumination (Auto & Manual)
Dust Removal (Auto)
Chromatic Aberration Correction (Auto)
Purple Fringing Correction (Auto & Manual)
Light Falloff Correction (Auto & Manual)
Sharpness Falloff Correction (Auto & Manual)
Vignetting (Manual, Positive & Negative)
Corrections can be saved as custom corrections and can be applied in a batch. Pre-set automatic corrections for many lenses from the below lens families:
Contax 645 AF Lenses
Hasselblad CF and FE Lenses
Hasselblad HC Lenses
Mamiya/Phase One D Lenses
Schneider LS Lenses
Steve Hendrix
-
This lens test is totally bogus... here is what I posted about it on FM forum and soon after it was taken down:
Mamiya vs Hasselblad independent lens test
I saw an "independent" lens test between Hasselblad H lenses and Mamiya lenses on the Mamiya website.
The tester claims that all the Mamiya lenses are better than Hasselblad H lenses.
But I found the test to be a bit flawed to say the least.
First of all it was carried out using a rather vintage piece of equipment:
(http://www.wie-tec.de/images/product_images/popup_images/2675_0.jpg)
They are pretty much obsolete and can be bought for peanuts:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pearl-Optical-RPT-15A-Resolution-Power-Test-Projektor-/290567723395?pt=DE_Photographica_Projektoren_Leinw%C3%A4nde&hash=item43a72f9983#ht_1444wt_1139 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pearl-Optical-RPT-15A-Resolution-Power-Test-Projektor-/290567723395?pt=DE_Photographica_Projektoren_Leinw%C3%A4nde&hash=item43a72f9983#ht_1444wt_1139)
To start off with it's ancient and is dependent on being manually focused.
It is also a reverse system. It projects the image from behind the lens onto a wall.
The system also has heat problems.
No reputable optical company uses these things.
This is the type of thing that is used these days:
(http://www.trioptics.com/images/products/imagemaster/IM-HR_mit-Computertisch.jpg)
Trioptics Image Master HR.
Modern equipment uses the Modulation Transfer Function method.
The method is far more accurate for measuring resolution in regards to continuous tone images. The antiquated USAF test chart designed in 1951 is simply obsolete.
This is what they used:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/1951usaf_test_target.jpg/200px-1951usaf_test_target.jpg)
A testing screen standard made in 1951.
If you are going to use a target you should at least shoot a more modern target:
(http://www.jmloptical.com/images/target%20figure%20q7.jpg)
The next weird thing is where the lenses came from. Keep in mind it was claimed to be an independent test.
quote from the report:
"The Mamiya lenses were brand new and came off the shelf at the Mamiya warehouse in Elmsford, NY while the Hasselblad H lenses were randomly picked from a New York Rental company."
This is ridiculous as we all know well how rental gear in the photography business in New York gets handled. Just imagine how these lenses have been "cleaned" but who knows how many assistants with everything from a soiled lens cloth to some ones t-shirt. Just think of all the hairspray flying around, smoke, makeup ultra fine powders. Also imagine all the rough handling by rental clients, assistants and deliver staff.
I know that when I rent lenses in New York I make them pull out a few until I find a clean one.
Other issues...
The "readings" were made by someone looking at the projected image on a wall in the dark.
It also seems that no corner resolution was measured...
A much better way to test these lenses would have been to photograph a target like this one:
(http://www.jmloptical.com/images/target%20figure%20q7.jpg)
The same type of back could have been used. There are Phase and leaf backs in both Hasselblad and Mamiya mounts. The tangible photographic results could have been published in the form of downloadable images, rather than using subjective judgements of projected images. Keep in mind that these subjective readings were taken at different times as they only had one Pearl.
What is also interesting is that the "independent tester" works for Mamiya as a marketing consultant.
Here is a quote form the guys linkedin bio:
Marketing Consultant for Tenba / Cinevate / Mamiya / Leaf
MAC Group
2009 – Present (2 years)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardoangel (http://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardoangel)
I was curious to see where this Independent test was published so I looked at the link for the PDF
The link to the PDF document is:
http://bit.ly/ncv33q
but it's actually not the link, but a redirect... back to the Mamiya site.
http://www.mamiya-usa.com/landing/files/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf?utm_source=mamiya-usa.com&utm_medium=hyperlink&utm_campaign=tens-test-report-eduardo
bit.ly is a service for redirecting links.
Well it seems to me that the test is not exactly an independent one, uses a dubious method with vintage testing gear and pitched brand new Mamiya lenses against heavily used rental lenses.
-
It seems the link is dead. It just link to www.mamiyaleaf.com
???
-
No commentary about the tester or the test equipment.
However, I do have to say that I am STUNNED by how sharp my RZ 150mm f/3.5 lens is, even wide open. It's the sharpest RZ lens I own (out of 5), shooting with an Aptus 22.
That appears to mirror his findings about the 150mm.
-
If the test was carried out fully open at infinity then it doesn't tell us much at all!
Especially as HC lenses are optimised in the nearer field - the field that is most used.
Perhaps we would see somewhat different results if it was repeated at 3-4m at f8?
A comprehensive and fair test would have done so to give us the true impression of how each lens performs at a given set of factors.
Naturally it contradicts our own findings. ;).
David
true use and popularity of the system says everything.
Pingang
-
Decent lenses should outresolve the sensor, no?
which would make testcharts pretty much redundant.
Edmund
This lens test is totally bogus... here is what I posted about it on FM forum and soon after it was taken down:
Mamiya vs Hasselblad independent lens test
I saw an "independent" lens test between Hasselblad H lenses and Mamiya lenses on the Mamiya website.
The tester claims that all the Mamiya lenses are better than Hasselblad H lenses.
But I found the test to be a bit flawed to say the least.
First of all it was carried out using a rather vintage piece of equipment:
(http://www.wie-tec.de/images/product_images/popup_images/2675_0.jpg)
They are pretty much obsolete and can be bought for peanuts:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pearl-Optical-RPT-15A-Resolution-Power-Test-Projektor-/290567723395?pt=DE_Photographica_Projektoren_Leinw%C3%A4nde&hash=item43a72f9983#ht_1444wt_1139 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Pearl-Optical-RPT-15A-Resolution-Power-Test-Projektor-/290567723395?pt=DE_Photographica_Projektoren_Leinw%C3%A4nde&hash=item43a72f9983#ht_1444wt_1139)
To start off with it's ancient and is dependent on being manually focused.
It is also a reverse system. It projects the image from behind the lens onto a wall.
The system also has heat problems.
No reputable optical company uses these things.
This is the type of thing that is used these days:
(http://www.trioptics.com/images/products/imagemaster/IM-HR_mit-Computertisch.jpg)
Trioptics Image Master HR.
Modern equipment uses the Modulation Transfer Function method.
The method is far more accurate for measuring resolution in regards to continuous tone images. The antiquated USAF test chart designed in 1951 is simply obsolete.
This is what they used:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/1951usaf_test_target.jpg/200px-1951usaf_test_target.jpg)
A testing screen standard made in 1951.
If you are going to use a target you should at least shoot a more modern target:
(http://www.jmloptical.com/images/target%20figure%20q7.jpg)
The next weird thing is where the lenses came from. Keep in mind it was claimed to be an independent test.
quote from the report:
"The Mamiya lenses were brand new and came off the shelf at the Mamiya warehouse in Elmsford, NY while the Hasselblad H lenses were randomly picked from a New York Rental company."
This is ridiculous as we all know well how rental gear in the photography business in New York gets handled. Just imagine how these lenses have been "cleaned" but who knows how many assistants with everything from a soiled lens cloth to some ones t-shirt. Just think of all the hairspray flying around, smoke, makeup ultra fine powders. Also imagine all the rough handling by rental clients, assistants and deliver staff.
I know that when I rent lenses in New York I make them pull out a few until I find a clean one.
Other issues...
The "readings" were made by someone looking at the projected image on a wall in the dark.
It also seems that no corner resolution was measured...
A much better way to test these lenses would have been to photograph a target like this one:
(http://www.jmloptical.com/images/target%20figure%20q7.jpg)
The same type of back could have been used. There are Phase and leaf backs in both Hasselblad and Mamiya mounts. The tangible photographic results could have been published in the form of downloadable images, rather than using subjective judgements of projected images. Keep in mind that these subjective readings were taken at different times as they only had one Pearl.
What is also interesting is that the "independent tester" works for Mamiya as a marketing consultant.
Here is a quote form the guys linkedin bio:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardoangel (http://www.linkedin.com/in/eduardoangel)
I was curious to see where this Independent test was published so I looked at the link for the PDF
The link to the PDF document is:
http://bit.ly/ncv33q
but it's actually not the link, but a redirect... back to the Mamiya site.
http://www.mamiya-usa.com/landing/files/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf?utm_source=mamiya-usa.com&utm_medium=hyperlink&utm_campaign=tens-test-report-eduardo
bit.ly is a service for redirecting links.
Well it seems to me that the test is not exactly an independent one, uses a dubious method with vintage testing gear and pitched brand new Mamiya lenses against heavily used rental lenses.
-
It seems the link is dead. It just link to www.mamiyaleaf.com
???
Here is a link to the tester website... maybe he can send you a copy of the full pdf
http://eduardoangel.photoshelter.com/img-show/I0000GOazuNdSZ2E (http://eduardoangel.photoshelter.com/img-show/I0000GOazuNdSZ2E)
-
Hi,
This post is a response to that test: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70675.msg567223#msg567223
Best regards
Erik
Here is a link to the tester website... maybe he can send you a copy of the full pdf
http://eduardoangel.photoshelter.com/img-show/I0000GOazuNdSZ2E (http://eduardoangel.photoshelter.com/img-show/I0000GOazuNdSZ2E)
-
Decent lenses should outresolve the sensor, no?
which would make testcharts pretty much redundant.
Edmund
Even more...
I trust what I read of multiple respected users of lenses and what I see by searching and viewing many pictures made using the lenses... ;)
Just one example, the Mamiya 45mm D lens is a very sharp lens... but I found its character boring... I know of no test to summarize the character of a lens...
-
I like the Mamiya lenses, particularly the RZ 150 3.5, RZ 110 2.8, the RZ 65 W (not the M/LA but only because it adds too much weight hand held), and the RZ 180 W. The 50 ULD is nice, but again, too heavy. The 645 lenses are fine, even the old ones. They have a different charachter than the RZ lenses, much more contrasty. The 45, 55, and 80 were my favorites, as well as the 80 1.9.
My impression has always been that the Mamiya RZ lenses produce a smoother image with color film, really sharp, while Hasselblad V lenses have more bite to them, a crunchier look that is perfect for B&W. The H lenses are great as well, but I was never wild about them. I thought they were closer to the Hasselblad V lenses than the Mamiya RZ lenses.
Then there is the Mamiya 7 and it lenses. Wow. The Mamiya 7 lenses have the look I'm after for both B&W and color. Smooth and contrasty at the same time, super sharp. The 65mm, 80mm, 50mm and 43mm are just stunning.
This "test" is just bad marketing. The problem with advertising and messaging to consumers is that nuance is lost, it gets reductive very quickly. You get an "independent" test of lenses which claims to show how sharp a lens is, ignoring all other factors of the product look. To get a nuanced message into the minds of consumers costs money, big money, and none of the camera makers have budgets or even the will to do it right. I think the old Phase video featuring our very own James Russel is how the makers need to move forward with their messaging, but they need to have a coherent message and campaign, and they need to spend some cash. The makers should identify the strong points of their lenses and cameras, and show them in operation, used by professionals producing beautiful images, and wrap a narative around it. There was a Leica video showing a guy shooting street with an M6 and a 28mm. They interviewed him, interspersed with the images he shot, and you know, they revealed the essential truth of the Leica M system. Phase/Leaf/Mamiya, Hasselblad, Nikon, Canon, and Leica with the S should do the same thing. And F&H, really, F&H could really benefit from a coherent YouTube based campaign for the Hy6. Does anyone know who handles camera accounts? Do any of the back makers have an AOR?
-
Indeed the Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp and a terrific camera system. 6x7 in such a small package is highly impressive. A grat joy to use the camera. ;D
That said, I am no fan of Mamiya, due in contrast to Mamiya 7 I was not fond of the Mamiya 645 system and had ZD camera, AFD, AFDIII and many lenses because they brought me many problems and issues. That said indeed the 80/1.9 in late version was my very favorite Mamiya lens to point I even considered making it into Rollei mount. It was not the sharpest lens but with a wonderful character and 1.9 which for medium format is as wide as gets. The remarkable achievement is that it at same time is as low weight as it is. It was the Mamiya lens that was very difficult to part from, and last one I sold from my Mamiya collection, much also since I had found it as new stock ca. 2007. The problem with the 80/1.9 on the AFDIII was the focus system which had the green confirmation dot display during a focus travel, thus making it difficult to find exact where focus was for such shallow DOF. It was the final along numerous issues with Mamiya system that made me call it quits. Somehow most Japanese products I have come across have frank had some kind of glitch that had been missed from design or quality... Mamiya 7 was a notable exception.
Best regards,
Anders
-
Don't know about their test, but it passes mine. IMHO Rz 150 f/3.5 bang for the buck is probably not beatable even if the others are better ( and I'd be damn impressed if that were the case).
Cost wise, buying any other MF system along with the Canons was out of the question for my situation. So it was going to be Mamiya or nothing.
But i am sure i am preaching to the quire, being newbie here.. This beast of the camera, is just fun to shoot, just sharing a bit of my re-excitement. It fires without a single battery in it, At 1/400, but still it works.
I found this video today, now that's some fast RZ shooters. DO these guys look like they are hindered by this being all manual system?
http://bcove.me/77hq9ud7
peace,
Mark
-
I only experienced a few problems with the AFd series in my 8 years of owning several bodies. Never had lens problems. I had a bad film back once. I had body that wouldn't talk to the digital mounted on it consistently. I had shutter issues with all of them, but they had high shot counts. I never had issues focusing with them, but the longest lens I tended to use was the 80. The 55 was one of my favorite lenses on color film, the 45 on croped MFD (P30+). Downside to teh system was, to me, no fulltime MF/AF. I ended up manually focusing all the time. The AFd and AFd2 had this horrible lag after you pressed the shutter release which I couldn't stand. Just made me angry.
Now the RZ, well, I truly believe that the RZ is one of the best systems ever produced. I wish they would make a ProIII version for digital that had a digital friendly magnified finder, both waistlevel and AE Prism, that would crop and magnify to the chip size, yet still allow you to shoot film using a non-digital finder.
Indeed the Mamiya 7 lenses are very sharp and a terrific camera system. 6x7 in such a small package is highly impressive. A grat joy to use the camera. ;D
That said, I am no fan of Mamiya, due in contrast to Mamiya 7 I was not fond of the Mamiya 645 system and had ZD camera, AFD, AFDIII and many lenses because they brought me many problems and issues. That said indeed the 80/1.9 in late version was my very favorite Mamiya lens to point I even considered making it into Rollei mount. It was not the sharpest lens but with a wonderful character and 1.9 which for medium format is as wide as gets. The remarkable achievement is that it at same time is as low weight as it is. It was the Mamiya lens that was very difficult to part from, and last one I sold from my Mamiya collection, much also since I had found it as new stock ca. 2007. The problem with the 80/1.9 on the AFDIII was the focus system which had the green confirmation dot display during a focus travel, thus making it difficult to find exact where focus was for such shallow DOF. It was the final along numerous issues with Mamiya system that made me call it quits. Somehow most Japanese products I have come across have frank had some kind of glitch that had been missed from design or quality... Mamiya 7 was a notable exception.
Best regards,
Anders
-
The RZ is a cool camera, really sharp lenses, although heavy system. I purchased a whole RZ system on Ebay some years back for some 2,000 usd plus, including some 5-6 lenses. Not sure if prices are same low now or not, but it was like for free... reason I sold it off was it felt too heavy too me. Actually I did not even expose one frame... yet the RZ WLF was what introduced me to WLFs... I looked at Hassy V because tired of Mamiya 645 system... along came Hy6 with WLF ;D
A WLF is something I can suggest to try for anyone, both for the vision, and because it is easier to hold a camera by cradling it since one do not need lift the camera to head level.. which takes more muscles :)...
Yes, I know... RZ WLF gives a 7x7cm view of a bright focus screen... my Hy6 is only a mere 6x6cm ;D
If the RZs are still as cheap on Ebay, I would recommend to anyone even to buy with just one lens and try out some film, just for the heck of experience, and a learning of a new vision. ;D
-
The AFd and AFd2 had this horrible lag after you pressed the shutter release which I couldn't stand. Just made me angry
I felt that way about the shutter lag on the DF. The viewfinder goes black for ever and a day - so long you loose connection with what you are shooting and its long enough before the frame is captured that you can inadvertently move the camera or the subject/model will move after they hear the click of the mirror moving. Very frustrating.
The RZ is just a fun camera to use. It's like driving in an old car. You feel and hear everything. Makes great images too. I've never used the 7 but one could be in my future since I have started to shoot more film. Love the images I have been seeing with the 7.
-
Hi,
I hope it is OK to ask? What film are you shooting and how do you scan? Reason I'm asking is that I tried to kick some life into my Pentax 67 (I have a significant kit), but never got happy with the results.
Best regards
Erik
I felt that way about the shutter lag on the DF. The viewfinder goes black for ever and a day - so long you loose connection with what you are shooting and its long enough before the frame is captured that you can inadvertently move the camera or the subject/model will move after they hear the click of the mirror moving. Very frustrating.
The RZ is just a fun camera to use. It's like driving in an old car. You feel and hear everything. Makes great images too. I've never used the 7 but one could be in my future since I have started to shoot more film. Love the images I have been seeing with the 7.
-
Now the RZ, well, I truly believe that the RZ is one of the best systems ever produced. I wish they would make a ProIII version for digital that had a digital friendly magnified finder, both waistlevel and AE Prism, that would crop and magnify to the chip size, yet still allow you to shoot film using a non-digital finder.
Yes. It's sad that Mamiya/Phase don't optimize this camera.
On top of what you said I would add a few things.
A shift back so that you can stitch by simply moving the back.
Exposure verification through light bounced off the film for those people shooting film in this digital age.
Nothing too fancy... just confirm an exposure. The Fuji GX680 has it and it's nice to have this confirmation.
I had the Mamiya 6x7 for a few years and liked it very much with the exception of the "coffee grinder"...
that's what I affectionately call the RZ 6x7 motor drive.
As for the lenses... very nice. A bit on the harsh side for shooting transparancys, but actually really well suited to todays negatives.
110mm 2.8 is one of my all time favorite lenses. The 150 3.5 is sweet too. I used the 180mm and 250mm lenses more as they were better focal lengths for beauty, but they did not quite have the look of the 110 or 150.
I buy far prefer the Fuji gx680 lenses, especially in the longer focal lengths. The 110mm 2.8 Mamiya is very close to the 125mm 3.2 or 115 3.2 Fuji, but the tilt shift of the Fuji lenses is a functionality that takes the look much further. But you have to put up with a much heavier camera.
A few shots I've taken with the Mamiya RZ
This is with Tri-x processed aggressively for more grain
(http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/101029/18/4ccb78b2a58b0.jpg)
180mm
This is Plus-X processed for smooth gentle skin tones
(http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6172/6176076562_8bd345dfbf_b.jpg)
250mm most likely at f8 or 5.6
Plus-x
(http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/091212/00/4b234fd1177dc.jpg)
Oh one last thing. The Mamiya RZ has a lot of rather chunky moving parts. When I shot on a tripod in studio with hot lights
I would get way sharper images on a heavy as hell column studio stand than with a heavy weight regular portable tripod.
Hand held the Mamiya is lovely with the 110mm 2.8, but with the other lenses I had it was really unbalanced.
While the Fuji is bigger and significantly heavier I still prefer it hand held balance wise.. all be it for shorter periods.
One warning with the Mamiya RZ if you are shooting film. The shutter electronics can fail and the camera defaults to a mechanical speed of 1/400th, however is sounds the same as if it were fully working. You can end up shooting and under exposing. The shutter release lock ring does have to be set differently, but it's quite possible to confuse it with simply locked or unlockes shutter release.
That said the shutters are reliable, but something to keep in mind as many will be buying used gear. I have had two lenses fail this way. One was bought new and it failed quite soon. The other was a perfect clean and shiny used one.
The Fuji to avoid problems like this has a nifty exposure verification system. It measures light bouncing off the film plane during exposure
and sets off an alarm if you are more than a stop and a bit off. Big light flashes and it sounds an alarm buzzer. Same buzzer also warns you when you are on the last frame of the roll.
-
I felt that way about the shutter lag on the DF. The viewfinder goes black for ever and a day - so long you loose connection with what you are shooting and its long enough before the frame is captured that you can inadvertently move the camera or the subject/model will move after they hear the click of the mirror moving. Very frustrating.
The RZ is just a fun camera to use. It's like driving in an old car. You feel and hear everything. Makes great images too. I've never used the 7 but one could be in my future since I have started to shoot more film. Love the images I have been seeing with the 7.
While I did like the RZ and it served me really well I never went back to it after using the Fuji gx680 for various reasons, but one in particular was because of the difference in the mirror. With the Fuji gx680 the mirror goes down after the shot much quicker and you keep the connection with the subject more.
Also after looking through the Fuji GX680 prism finder .. I just could not go back. The RZ waist level finder is good, but I never liked the Prism finder.
Regarding the Mamiya 7... it's a terrific camera IQ wise.
-
It seems the link is dead. It just link to www.mamiyaleaf.com
???
You can download the full pdf of the so called independant test here:
http://wolfsbergimages.com/wp-content/uploads/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf (http://wolfsbergimages.com/wp-content/uploads/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf)
Can be viewed here:
https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://wolfsbergimages.com/wp-content/uploads/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf&chrome=true (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=http://wolfsbergimages.com/wp-content/uploads/Mamiya_LensTest_Report_Final.pdf&chrome=true)
-
If the test was carried out fully open at infinity then it doesn't tell us much at all!
Especially as HC lenses are optimised in the nearer field - the field that is most used.
Perhaps we would see somewhat different results if it was repeated at 3-4m at f8?
A comprehensive and fair test would have done so to give us the true impression of how each lens performs at a given set of factors.
Naturally it contradicts our own findings. ;).
David
This test is full of mysteries...
I'd like to understand how the lenses could be focused at infinity and the image of the chart be projected on the wall inside a building?
I don't see how the could test the lenses at infinity.
The whole test is bogus.
-
Since you asked, in the case of Capture One:
Lens Cast Correction (Auto)
Equalized Scene Illumination (Auto & Manual)
Dust Removal (Auto)
Chromatic Aberration Correction (Auto)
Purple Fringing Correction (Auto & Manual)
Light Falloff Correction (Auto & Manual)
Sharpness Falloff Correction (Auto & Manual)
Vignetting (Manual, Positive & Negative)
Corrections can be saved as custom corrections and can be applied in a batch. Pre-set automatic corrections for many lenses from the below lens families:
Contax 645 AF Lenses
Hasselblad CF and FE Lenses
Hasselblad HC Lenses
Mamiya/Phase One D Lenses
Schneider LS Lenses
Steve
I haven't upgraded yet but do the pre-set lens corrections in Capture One Pro v7 still work by applying a preset amount of generic correction rather than something based on a profile for the specific distortion of that lens (which may be complex)?
I think I can guess the answer but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised, being the guardian of one of the bastard offspring of the shortlived Hasselblad/PhaseOne marriage. I have not found a way in C1 of achieving the same distortion correction from my HC35mm as I do when I shoot it with a Hasselblad camera/back and process it in Phocus and I assume that is the reason. I guess the focus distance might matter too and I realise you don't have that. Do the Phase One/Mamiya corrections work differently?
Regards
Tony
-
I think I can guess the answer but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised, being the guardian of one of the bastard offspring of the shortlived Hasselblad/PhaseOne marriage. I have not found a way in C1 of achieving the same distortion correction from my HC35mm as I do when I shoot it with a Hasselblad camera/back and process it in Phocus and I assume that is the reason. I guess the focus distance might matter too and I realise you don't have that. Do the Phase One/Mamiya corrections work differently?
Regards
Tony
The Hasselblad (Phocus) corrections are better than the C1 corrections.This does of course stand to reason as Hasselblad have all the computer data for their own lenses, and as you say Tony the camera/lens combo send the distance data back which I was told by the lens designer at Hasselblad does have a significant impact on corrections.
As an aside the really amazing stuff happens when you use an HTS (tilt-shift) and watch the corrections deal with the distortion as the HTS passes back the amount of tilt and shift for the corrections.
Nick-T
-
The Hasselblad (Phocus) corrections are better than the C1 corrections.This does of course stand to reason as Hasselblad have all the computer data for their own lenses, and as you say Tony the camera/lens combo send the distance data back which I was told by the lens designer at Hasselblad does have a significant impact on corrections.
Additionally Hasselblad supports each and every lens out of the box.
As far as I know C1 only has lens profiles for 5 out of 12 lenses (80, 100, 120, 150 and 50-110).
-
As far as I know C1 only has lens profiles for 5 out of 12 lenses (80, 100, 120, 150 and 50-110).
And 28mm and 35mm as well ;)
-
And 28mm and 35mm as well ;)
But back to my original point, aren't the Phase One corrections just set to apply a certain value to the (generic) distortion slider?
Nick, all your talk of corrections for the HTS is making that b**tard Hasselbald/Phase offspring feel inadequate again. But seriously I do rate C1 highly (and I have used Phocus)
Regards
Tony
-
But back to my original point, aren't the Phase One corrections just set to apply a certain value to the (generic) distortion slider?
No, for example as you know the HC 35mm has a moustache-like distortion and you cannot fix it with a pincushion slider.
Likewise for falloff as it varies depending on aperture.
If you try Capture One 7 you will see that it now has lens profiles for many DSLR and smaller format lenses including zooms and those profiles deal with distortion, falloff, CA and fringing.
Yair
-
And 28mm and 35mm as well ;)
I forgot about the 35mm... I wasn't aware of HCD 28mm. That is great news. Would love to hear feedback from users on this.
Any plans to add a lens profile for the 50mm-II?