Reading mode: Light Dark

5D vs 22mpix Mimaya ZD medium format back

Go to last post
Hi Matt,

I would not expect the 5D to hold a candle to the Betterlight scanning back but the quality of the up-rezzing will make a huge difference to the result...how was this 5D up rezzing done because it looks pretty marginal at this end.

-evan

--
5D, ex-D200, S2

I do know how to spell. I'm just a lousy Tipyst!

http://www.pbase.com/eheffa
 
Zena Marx said:
5D holds its own, I think, against the 22mpix Mimaya ZD medium
format back.

http://www.photocamel.com/forum/medium-large-format-forum/26083-handsdown-review-zd-back-645af-dii.html
Click to expand...
...I have to say that the 5D, for my standards, is easily good enough. However, I have to say that I really like the DR of the Mamiya over the 5D, which is, for me, worth considerably more than the detail advantage.

So, let's say, for example, that there were two options for the design of the next-gen 5D. One is 22 MP and captures the same detail as the Mamiya, the other is still 12.8 MP and captures the same DR, I'd opt for the latter.

--
--joe

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/joemama/

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit my photos. If you wish to use any of my photos for any purpose other than editing in these forums, please ask.
 
This was hardly an objective comparison. The two forms are two totally different beasts. He wants to test the MF in studio, but was so heavy on the PP on the model that she looks plastic and unrealistic. I know that was the look he was going for, but it takes away from the objectivity of the test. He kept stating that the MF had a "3-D" look, and that is a matter of opinion. The "little truck" looks identical in both shots. He used a damn TAMRON lens for pete's sake. He couldn't even make it a fair test by using the 24-70L lens? He stated the the Tamron was sharper and better than the Canon? Oh puhlease. That takes away all credibility in my eyes. Don't get me wrong, the Mamiya is awesome, but not at the expense of making another camera look bad, unfairly. Personally, I wold rather have the new Hassy if I went with digital MF. :oP

--
A picture is no longer worth a 1000 words, it's worth about 5MB.
 
You take amazing shots, kudos there. :o)

But I just don't buy that the Tamron is better than the L lens. (my tone, and in my other post is meant to be tongue in cheek, not brash and harsh btw). ;o)
--
A picture is no longer worth a 1000 words, it's worth about 5MB.
 
MikeLee said:
He used a damn TAMRON lens for pete's sake. He couldn't even make it a fair test by
using the 24-70L lens? He stated the the Tamron was sharper and better than the
Canon? Oh puhlease.
Click to expand...
I think this reveals that you don't spend a lot of time looking at how actual lenses perform. That particular Tamron is very good indeed and is at least the equal of the 24-70L in IQ. But not in build. I would actually doubt that a 24mm or 28mm Canon prime would be measurably better, in fact decent odds that these would be worse, given that these are pretty mediocre lenses in most people's hands.
 
I'm not going to knock the Tamron around...I've owned it for years and use one all the time, even did a review of it on my website; however, it isn't a top quality lens. It's not sharper than L glass and most certainly falls off on the edges more than any L glass I own. It's not a studio portrait lens and I wouldn't use it for anything critical in my business unless I had no choice. All that said, the richness of the MF back is apparent and there is no way anyone can claim the 5D and a 22mp MF back are in the same arena when it comes to a certain type of photography. I find the 1DsMKII is about minimum requirement along with top prime lenses for high resolution work from anything in the DSLR class of camera.

It's an interesting exercise to compare the DSLR's and the MF backs, I think Reichman at Luminous Landscape did it a year or so back with several MF backs, Digital MF's and the 5D & 1DsMKII, which showed the basic differences in resolution and range. The amazing thing to me is that the 1DsMKII at 3 years old still holds up to Medium Format and the 5D is not that far out of the game. For a $3000 camera to compete with a $7000 camera and even a $20-30K body tells you where the technology is headed.

Fun stuff.
--
Visit me at

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/
 
If you are saying the smudged edges of the Tamron is good image quality, then that shows you don't spend much time looking at the entire frame to determine image quality. It may be sharp in the center 20% of the lens, but come on, saying this lens is just as good as the 24-70L is just ridiculous. And to say a good Canon prime is worse than the Tamron...hmmmmm
PhilJeffrey said:
PhilJeffrey said:
He used a damn TAMRON lens for pete's sake. He couldn't even make it a fair test by
using the 24-70L lens? He stated the the Tamron was sharper and better than the
Canon? Oh puhlease.
Click to expand...
I think this reveals that you don't spend a lot of time looking at
how actual lenses perform. That particular Tamron is very good
indeed and is at least the equal of the 24-70L in IQ. But not in
build. I would actually doubt that a 24mm or 28mm Canon prime
would be measurably better, in fact decent odds that these would be
worse, given that these are pretty mediocre lenses in most people's
hands.
Click to expand...
--
A picture is no longer worth a 1000 words, it's worth about 5MB.
 
Very well stated. That was the point I was trying to make. :o)
Radio Denver said:
I'm not going to knock the Tamron around...I've owned it for years
and use one all the time, even did a review of it on my website;
however, it isn't a top quality lens. It's not sharper than L
glass and most certainly falls off on the edges more than any L
glass I own. It's not a studio portrait lens and I wouldn't use it
for anything critical in my business unless I had no choice. All
that said, the richness of the MF back is apparent and there is no
way anyone can claim the 5D and a 22mp MF back are in the same
arena when it comes to a certain type of photography. I find the
1DsMKII is about minimum requirement along with top prime lenses
for high resolution work from anything in the DSLR class of camera.

It's an interesting exercise to compare the DSLR's and the MF
backs, I think Reichman at Luminous Landscape did it a year or so
back with several MF backs, Digital MF's and the 5D & 1DsMKII,
which showed the basic differences in resolution and range. The
amazing thing to me is that the 1DsMKII at 3 years old still holds
up to Medium Format and the 5D is not that far out of the game.
For a $3000 camera to compete with a $7000 camera and even a
$20-30K body tells you where the technology is headed.

Fun stuff.
--
Visit me at

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/
Click to expand...
--
A picture is no longer worth a 1000 words, it's worth about 5MB.
 
I shoot architecture for a living with a 1DsII after using 4x5's for the first 23 years of my business. I have a 16-35 f/2.8 MkII, a 17-40L, 24 TS-E F/3.5L, 70-200 f/4L and.... drum roll please.... a Tamron 28-75 XRDi.

This is no joke. I have taken shots that I THOUGHT I had taken with the Canon L lenses and when I work on the files, including looking at every nook and cranny for dust, I have at times remarked to myself "Dang, that L glass looks SHARPER than I ever remember it looking... I must have really had the focus dialed in perfectly and been at the absolute 'sweet' spot...."

Then I look at the EXIF and see it was the Tamron.

Mine is stellar and I do not hesitate for one minute to use it for even the most critical applications.

--

'We spend all of our lives pushing the buttons and pulling the levers found on the front panel of reality. How can we be so certain that there is also not a rear panel... one that only God can reach, and when He does flip an unseen switch or turn a dial that is out of our reach we see it as a Miracle?' JR
http://www.jimroofcreative.com
 
Nice review but personally I don't get it... why Tamron and compared to 24-70? 24-70 is no rear close to resolution which 5D can give. I would love to see comparison with 85mm 1.2MarkII in modelling shoots (comparing landscapes with it is not practical since 85mm has so massive bokeh).

oka
--
http://www.dorka.tv
 
I'm afraid alot of people don't read but just scan (pun intended).

I have explained numerous times in the thread that I compared the 5D to the Mamiya with the kitlens 80mm which is compared to the other lenses I own is just plain soft.

To be honest I think on a reality scale the Tamron glass will outperform the 80mm by a large margin.

It's not that I don't own anything else than the Tamron, but I do in that range.

For my studio work I have used everything from the 135mm f2.0 to the 70-200 f2.8 (which I used most of the time by the way).

I also think there is too much fuzz about the Tamron in the review.
The difference you see are no way related to glass.

The more 3D look and the dynamic range + microdetail cannot be accounted to glass, but simple to the better quality of the pixels and less filters before the sensor.

It's funny to see alot of people just talking about the Tamron and not seeing the rest, I wonder....

Greetings,
Frank
 
I know Frank, met him at the tradeshow few months back. Even bought a few of his dvd's.

I read the article and have to agree that for HIM the ZD performs better than a 5D. But then Frank shoots with 50 and 100 ISO!

For ME it is reversed...because I shoot low light (weddings and portraits on location) and I NEED 1600 ISO most of the time...in combination with high performance primes (like the 35/1.4L and the 135/2.0L). So for me the ZD is out of the question.

BTW Lenses: I used to own the 24-70/2.8L and the 70-200/2.8L IS but that's history now. The primes performed so much better on my 5D cameras, the zooms had to go.
 
Ive had the opportunity to see output from the ZD and the 5D (as well as my own D200), For what it's worth, my limited view was that the ZD was the one I would choose for studio work and most landscapes. For general purpose work, one of the dslrs (I'm not going to get drawn into Canon vs Nikon here). It's just like film. For studios generally medium format, for general purpose, sport, reportage etc. 35mm. You can get pretty close with 35mm, but there is a class of application where MF simply beats 35mm hands down. The same is true for digital, and it's not just pixels.

So my plan is to sick to dslrs, but hire MF if the job justifies it.
--
Tony
 
Totally agree. That Tamron lens was good enough for me to sell the overpriced Canon L 24-70.
jimcreative said:
I shoot architecture for a living with a 1DsII after using 4x5's
for the first 23 years of my business. I have a 16-35 f/2.8 MkII,
a 17-40L, 24 TS-E F/3.5L, 70-200 f/4L and.... drum roll please....
a Tamron 28-75 XRDi.

This is no joke. I have taken shots that I THOUGHT I had taken
with the Canon L lenses and when I work on the files, including
looking at every nook and cranny for dust, I have at times remarked
to myself "Dang, that L glass looks SHARPER than I ever remember it
looking... I must have really had the focus dialed in perfectly and
been at the absolute 'sweet' spot...."

Then I look at the EXIF and see it was the Tamron.

Mine is stellar and I do not hesitate for one minute to use it for
even the most critical applications.

--
'We spend all of our lives pushing the buttons and pulling the
levers found on the front panel of reality. How can we be so
certain that there is also not a rear panel... one that only God
can reach, and when He does flip an unseen switch or turn a dial
that is out of our reach we see it as a Miracle?' JR
http://www.jimroofcreative.com
Click to expand...
 
I notice a significant improvement in image quality when I use primes on my 5D vs zooms, specifically the 50mm f1,4 and the 85mm f1.2L. Those 2 lenses take the 5D to another level, both in color and sharpness detail. Use them with good light at f4+ and man, iq is soooo sweet.
 
Do you have any sample pics you could show us?
Tony Rundle said:
Ive had the opportunity to see output from the ZD and the 5D (as well
as my own D200), For what it's worth, my limited view was that the ZD
was the one I would choose for studio work and most landscapes. For
general purpose work, one of the dslrs (I'm not going to get drawn
into Canon vs Nikon here). It's just like film. For studios generally
medium format, for general purpose, sport, reportage etc. 35mm. You
can get pretty close with 35mm, but there is a class of application
where MF simply beats 35mm hands down. The same is true for digital,
and it's not just pixels.

So my plan is to sick to dslrs, but hire MF if the job justifies it.
--
Tony
Click to expand...
 
frankd7, i'm with you. i don't own ff (aka 5d) camera (only 30d for now, but i'm thinking of ff a lot), but i do take some shots on mamiya 645 (film) from time to time, also have got some 6x6 scans etc.

it's true about 3d effect, theory just say: bigger senzor-smaller dof, but it's not just that imho, it's same when looking pictures, taken with rangefinder, just differnet look comparing to classic slr picture. it could be something with different lens design etc, i dont know..

also details, again pixel size (and senzor filters) does matter. there was some test online, comparing pics taken with same lens on 5d and some other crop camera with high mpix (400d i guess) and detail definition was clearly better on 5d (and not just beacuse higher pixel count).so, i guess, same goes with leica vs. mf senzor.

and finnaly, colours. i never liked that "canon" look in pictures too much (boosted red and green). no, raw doesnt help, maybe some cooling filter etc. don't get me wrong, it's not that dramatic, but i always ilked colours from my film scans more (even for post-processing). when i saw those pics made with phase-one or mamiya back etc, i always drool over colours and tonality, hehe.
but hey, for my needs, even 30d is overkill..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeroen1969
Newbee to the Medium Format Universe
2 3
Replies
49
Views
21K
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
SeeingSomeThingsMissingMany
ProfHankD
4x5 Focal-Plane Shutters & Backs
Replies
6
Views
6K
ProfHankD
ProfHankD
bikeguy
Another RF 50mm f/1.8 image Shot at f/2.5
Replies
15
Views
4K
bikeguy
bikeguy
Erik Kaffehr
The origins of the 16 bit myth in medium format
2
Replies
25
Views
6K
just Tony
just Tony
D
  • Question Question
The lure of medium format
6 7 8
Replies
149
Views
7K
UsherFellig
U

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