Reading mode: Light Dark

Mamiya ZD is a Major Disappointment . . . .

Go to last post
And that makes my point. They spent a great deal of time working on this camera to get it right. And the rear LCD was probably the last thing on their minds. They were concerned about IMAGE QUALITY, just as they have been for DECADES. If I'm right, and if nothing's changed at Mamiya, this camera will be fantastic, because this is a company with the right priorities.

Preproduction camera images posted on the web are meaningless. Let's see what the production camera can do.

I'm not saying it's going to be the best thing ever. I'm saying that IF Mamiya is true to form, it will deliver as good or better IQ as any other camera with similar specs, and it will do it for far less expense than any other camera with similar specs. And it will kick the 1dsMKII and any other 36x24 format DSLR upside its puny little head. ;-)

--
Peter White
 
I wasn't sure of the price of the mamiya (still aren't completely), but the h1d should be considerably more expensive at more than $17000. My bad, if price is the main concern.
Peter White said:
But that's the issue. Mamiya has always been less expensive than
Hasselblad, and has always delivered comparable IQ. I don't know
what a digital Blad system runs, but I'll bet my bottom dollar it's
a good deal more than the ZD.
--
Peter White
Click to expand...
 
The choice to go medium format back is less about pixels and file quality and more about perspective and final image look, the perspective of a larger format camera is different than a smaller format and that cannot be matched. Given equal file quality to a 1DS2 many fashion shooters would go medium in a second even at the expense of other inconveniences, for that perspective difference.

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
 
Stephen Eastwood said:
The choice to go medium format back is less about pixels and file
quality and more about perspective and final image look, the
perspective of a larger format camera is different than a smaller
format and that cannot be matched.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'm not understanding you. Perspective is related only to the relative positions of lens and subject. It has nothing whatsoever to do with format. Whether the camera is a Powershot Pro 1 or a 8x10 view, if the camera and subject are in the same positions, images made with the two cameras will have exactly the same perspective.

Given equal file quality to a
Stephen Eastwood said:
1DS2 many fashion shooters would go medium in a second even at the
expense of other inconveniences, for that perspective difference.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should give us a definition of "perspective".

And could you explain what you mean by "final image look"?

Thanks,

--
Peter White
 
even in the film days MF and LF were sought of because of better quality. You can get the same AOV and hence the same perspective (by standing in the same place) just by using a shorter focal length. The smaller 35mm format even has the advantage of much faster lenses than MF, and LF.
Stephen Eastwood said:
The choice to go medium format back is less about pixels and file
quality and more about perspective and final image look, the
perspective of a larger format camera is different than a smaller
format and that cannot be matched. Given equal file quality to a
1DS2 many fashion shooters would go medium in a second even at the
expense of other inconveniences, for that perspective difference.

--
Stephen Eastwood
http://www.nyphotographics.com
Click to expand...
 
JJGP said:
an aforedable mf dig camera (compared to all the other mf
camera/back combos.
This camera is the cat's meow....especially for a mf shooter who
wants to go digital and already owns a bunch of Mamiya
lenses.....mama miya!
jules
Click to expand...
PhaseOne P21 is around $20K. ZD back may be ??? $10k?

P21 back is my dream back for our 645afd, but I'll take some
setback for $10k with the ZD back. Having a set of 645afd lenses
makes the ZD a good choice. The film use at our weddings has
dropped to zero this year. A ZD back for the engagement session
and portraits would be nice. For our business a whole new 1DsII
over a ZD back is in favor of the ZD because we already have the
camera/lens combo. The idea of using film is still valid if needed
so the 645afd can have its backup with a few rolls of film in
our camera bag.
 
Kick it upside it's puny head for what? I am not understanding the "Better" Factor. I have been using the canon line for a while now and I print Billboards , In store Posters and Double page magzine spreads bigger than W magazine and never have had any complaints about Quality. The "Only" advantage maybe some better cropping ability, But besides that, Not much different than the 1DsMII.

I also came from Medium format to Canon and Only miss MF for it's brighter bigger viewfinder. That is about it. And ofcourse my Leafshutter lens. But besides that. I do not miss anything.

The Last thing I need is Bigger files. I am already filling up 300 gig HD's once every week or 2.
And I do just about anything and everything with My pictures.
It's just another toy after 16megapixels. Just like cars.

Sure I would like a P45 with H1 but only for the WOW factor. I canget just about the same thing from the 1DsMII, For my work that is. And not sure what other work there is that would need much more Pixels. Maybe Car advert's....
Snook
Hopefully the ZD will prove me wrong, But I am not holding my breath.
--
1DsMII,5D,PB17',G5 D2.0---> Shooting RAW (Ofcourse)
http://homepage.mac.com/ekphotography/2006/
 
Peter White said:
The ZD may well be a great reason to go out and buy some Mamiya
lenses!
Click to expand...
And can't afford the ZD, there's always the Zork PSA adapter.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
 
I compared a couple images from the link above with a couple of Ron P's images from pbase.

All samples crops from FF viewed at 100%.

ZD vs. 5D, you decide....





I shoot with a couple of Fuji S2s and was thinking of the ZD when first announced, noticed the 5D recently and did a test shoot with one.

which way do you think I'm leaning now?

Robert
 
The lighting and exposure are so radically different that this comparison doesn't tell me much. The right lighting can make even an 8MP portrait from a 20D look razor sharp at 16x24. There were some amazing 20D prints at the PhotoPlus Expo in October. Soft, flat, underexposed lighting, on the other hand, can make even a P25 image look lifeless.

--

'Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Lord Acton, British
historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
 
How does lighting alone change the absolute resolution of a device? I wasn't comparing skintones or the skills of the makeup artists.

I would think the purpose of the comparison would be obvious to such a forum for the most part. Sorry if I've confused you.

Also, I have access to no other samples and these are what I'm evaluating in my own descision making as I approach my upgrade from the S2.

Got some better apples for me to chew on?

Robert
 
Peter White said:
And that makes my point. They spent a great deal of time working on
this camera to get it right. And the rear LCD was probably the last
thing on their minds. They were concerned about IMAGE QUALITY, just
as they have been for DECADES. If I'm right, and if nothing's
changed at Mamiya, this camera will be fantastic, because this is a
company with the right priorities.
Click to expand...
Long camera delays don't necessarily mean that the image quality turns out better. That's a romantic notion that doesn't necessarily jive with reality. Let's not forget the long-delayed and ill-fated Contax N Digital, which also happened to use a Dalsa sensor. Contax was also a company that had a reputation for high standards of image quality. But in the end, it was the sensor that let them down. Mamiya and Contax may have long histories of producing excellent hardware in the past, but in the digital age that's just not enough. The extent of Mamiya's and Contax's 'concerns about image quality' really had to do with producing good lenses that produced good images on film-- film that neither company was involved in producing. In the digital age, film has been replaced to a sensor that is a permanent fixture of the camera. A lot depends on the sensor, and the sensor is really beyond the scope of their expertise or experience. You can have a great history of producing quality bodies and lenses, but at the end of the day, if the sensor you're using can't compete, the whole system won't be able to compete.

And it really has nothing to do with the "priorities" of the company. Obviously, all the companies participating in producing digital cameras today have a desire to produce the best image quality possible. But wanting to do it, and actually succeeding in doing it, aren't necessarily the same thing. Sometimes the limiting factor is simply the sensor.
 
Peter White said:
And could you explain what you mean by "final image look"?
Click to expand...
One factor of "image look" associated with larger format sizes is depth of field control. The larger the format, the more depth of field control you have, particularly for getting subject isolation with shallower depth of field.
 
it's the size of your sensor that metters ;)
Majikthize said:
The lighting and exposure are so radically different that this
comparison doesn't tell me much. The right lighting can make even
an 8MP portrait from a 20D look razor sharp at 16x24. There were
some amazing 20D prints at the PhotoPlus Expo in October. Soft,
flat, underexposed lighting, on the other hand, can make even a P25
image look lifeless.

--
'Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Lord
Acton, British
historian of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Click to expand...
 
Peter White said:
They will tend to put the money where it counts most. So if they're
trying to keep a price point and they have the choice between a
larger LCD in the back or higher resolution in the sensor, the
choice they make is nothing to laugh about. They'll go with the
higher resolution sensor.

A smaller LCD is a minor inconvenience.

--
Peter White
Click to expand...
I think the sensor is costing them way too much. The 2.5" LCD screen is practically an industry standard, since it is appearing in practically all new DSLR cameras coming to the market. I think the ZD is stuck with the small LCD because of production delays. It appears that most of the parts were bought, including the LCD, but the cameras weren't ready for production because of the electronics/programming. So we have outdated parts in a camera that is only now beginning to see the light of day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top