I bet Hubsands ZD review will be the definitive technical review of the Zd's actual capabilities and limitations. If your shooting wide angle landscapes, keep in mind you will need to factor in the cost of the new mamiya 28mm which will not be cheap. Landscapes, particularly where it includes lots of fine distant detail such as tree limbs and grass requires more resolution and puts more requirements on a sensor than just about any other type of photography. I would think that the resolution jump, lack of AA filter and larger pixels for greater highlight detail would be areas where the ZD back would excel over any small format DSLR BUT we have yet to see what the next DS Canon will offer to be fair. Its an unknown.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
I must say that I'm a bit struck sometimes by reasons people bring to the table why something is NOT good.
I never painted the review rosy.
I think you than completly misread my review.
What I do PAINT ROSY and I love that is the depth and sharpness of the back and MF system.
I remember that when the 5D came out alot of people complaint because the buffer was so little, only arround 3 frames per second pff what a problem.
I don't know what flash system you use in the studio but even my RXs can only handle app 2 frames per second.
And to be honest I do alot of fashion/glamour etc. and I NEVER EVER shoot on the continues mode in the studio, to be honest when I shoot FAST it's maybe 2 frames in 3 seconds and that's for maybe 5-6 frames.
When you don't have your shot by then you are doing something completly wrong.
It's more coaching your model and keeping the flow that's important in fashion, a lot of people misread that by shooting as much pops in an minute as you can get.
For me there is a good flow in a session when I shoot and let the model take another position, shoot, model repositions etc.
I also never shoot more than 20 frames in one burst, meaning that even when the buffer fills up I still have time for it to empty.
Does it never happen, yeah sure.
We all do sometimes fast sessions and high flows, but most of the time I don't fill up more than 75% of my buffer.
You HAVE to remember that the MF system is a completly different setup than 35mm DSLR, I use both cameras and both for different uses.
I love my 5D (and will buy a 5DII when it's released) for the casual outside stuff or high ISO, in other words the reportage style shooting.
The MF CAN'T be beat for difficult lighting situations (high contrast scenes), and it's can't be beat for sharpness and quality.
So both have different uses.
I see my cameras as a tool, and when you are a good carpenter you know when to use a hammer or when to use a screwdriver ...Show more →
There is of course a major difference between the actual buffer of the 5D and the ZD back. I have never ever waited 15 seconds to shoot the next frame with my 5D and the buffer has never been an issue. If I shot sports, then perhaps I would hit that wall I guess but then I would not choose to use a 5D.
A lot of "Fashion" shooters actually shoot a lot of Catalog type work which is very fast paced and where a 11 frame buffer would not get it. For slower work - High Fashion, Beauty, Studio - then I agree the slow buffer would often not be an issue. I'm glad the back is working out great for you but I don't think the type of work/pace which you are doing would be considered the typical type of work/pace most Photographers encounter.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
I don't know what flash system you use in the studio but even my RXs can only handle app 2 frames per second.
And to be honest I do alot of fashion/glamour etc. and I NEVER EVER shoot on the continues mode in the studio, to be honest when I shoot FAST it's maybe 2 frames in 3 seconds and that's for maybe 5-6 frames.
When you don't have your shot by then you are doing something completly wrong.
My Dynalites usually are ready in about 1 Sec as I don't need to use them at full power in the Studio. Here in Florida where a lot of Catalog type work is done outside, Flash is often not used but instead Silks and reflectors are used so there is no waiting to take that next shot. For Catalog work, the pace is very fast with lots of frames shot in a very short time. Opposite to the way you work.
A more compreshensive data are more likely to come from multiple users and testers and those that know where to test the strength of the tool and acknowledge the weakness from the already well known literature. For example, why would I take the medium format digital back and shoot it at ISO 1600. This is why professional medium format photographers do not like to get into the debate with their tool instead keeping quite and produce stuning images. Frank has been very kind to show us from the Fashion perspective and we should not misquote him and his intention; simply appreciate the data that he has presented from his niche. If we want to bring out intention please look deeper here and you understand why this ZD review is also here. However, I do not like to bring it up but instead appreciate folks hard working efforts and their willingness to share the data for those of us sitting on our @$$ and read and theorize only.
A buffer is NEVER a problem, trust me.
It's how you USE your camera that's the problem.
The fault is often laid by the camera, while actually the fault is with the photographer.
Be real for one moment, you have 1.2fps for 11 frames.
Think 5 years back and even that was unthinkable for MF systems, and even 20 years ago there were still alot of good fashion photographers out there.
Same for the 5D.
Alot of people claim it's a bad sports cam, I use it for sports every weekend when I get the chance, It's all about knowing your equiptment and good timing.
On most soccer matches for example I use only bursts of maybe 4-5 frames max.
The ZD is a different beast from a DSLR.
You HAVE to adept, but it's not something that is difficult.
I did not have to change much in my workflow.
One more thing you mention the 5D with the buffer.
Although you are right that the 5D is faster, do you realise that the 5D files in the studio are arround 11-14MB max. The ZD files are all 36.5MB
That's moving about 3x the ammount of data.
To be honest I expected more problems with the switch to MF.
I was very afraid of the Manual focussing of the 120mm Macro, but the viewfinder is so large it's a breeze (especially with the confirmation lights in the viewfinder, go left, go right, you got it
There will always be nay sayers and there will always be people who will find the system bad, but that's for everything.
For me it's very simple, I want the absolute best quality I can get in the studio with an affordable price. And MF with the ZD is that solution.
I have had some debate over on another forum from someone who claimed the ZD was rubbish because it could only work till ISO400, he freaked when I told him that I would never use it above ISO100 and that ISO200 was still usable but only when I needed it.
I got a whole mail why he did not understand that I made the switch to such a rubbish toy camera.
I asked him if he shot in the studio, his answer was, sometimes.
I asked what ISO he used with flash, his response ISO100.
For me it was case closed, but he kept going on about the need to go higher than ISO400, I just stopped replying by mail.
Sometimes people don't want to see the differences.
Same goes for my own review, forums have been writen full about the rubbisch comparision because I used a Tamron lens instead of L glass, those people COMPLETLY missed the whole reason I posted it.
For me it was not the glass, it was the look of the MF system, the Dynamic Range, the missing AA filter thus REAL sharpness compared to artificial sharpness and 3D look.
Please remember that your camera is a tool, when you need to use a jackhammer don't try to do it with a screwdriver.
When you make the switch to MF DON'T SELL YOUR DSLR.
I still have my 5D with my lenses (although I sold my primes), I can't do all my work with the Mamiya. I CAN do all my work with the 5D (even billboards) but I for myself choose quality and that is the MF system.
@Son,
Thank you, that's what I meant.
I have never bothered with my opinion in MF systems because I did not OWN one (I did work with them, but never owned it).
When I made the switch it was to be honest shocking to see people talk about the bad and unusable shallow DOF of MF and a few posts later complement me on my photoshop skills on DOF and silky Bokeh.
When I told them it was all natural shot, he claimed it was impossible to get such shallow DOF on f11.
I can only do one thing when that happens, and think ok, next time I will ignore him/her.
Frank,
Everyone wants a complete and absolute solution and an absolute review but the reality that is not what they are going to get. The danger of reporting data where the testing is an inappropriate test of the system when it is already known that you should not use the tool in that fashion. You can scare folks off and fear is the death for your learning.
Folks who never us the medium format system would never know how f stop works. The ability to control depth of field in the medium format system is very different from the 35 mm system. This is why folks who are using the Leica M8 for example are trying to find the magic lens to give them the bokeh that they are missing out with their other system.
What I admire about your test is that you have shown putting a professional tool in the hand of the professional photographer who knows what he is doing will show the ability of the system as a wonderful tool for folks to do their job. There is nothing more frustrating when we need the right tool and not having it. Again, knowledge from review is good and it can also be bad if you do not take it to your hand and see if you are capable of using such tool.
Sometimes we do not have enough budget for what is out there and we must do what is available to us is more an important balancing act than being afraid all the time.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
A buffer is NEVER a problem, trust me.
It's how you USE your camera that's the problem.
The fault is often laid by the camera, while actually the fault is with the photographer.
Wow, thats about as much a Black and White statement as I have ever seen and quite ridiculous.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
Be real for one moment, you have 1.2fps for 11 frames.
Think 5 years back and even that was unthinkable for MF systems, and even 20 years ago there were still alot of good fashion photographers out there.
Again, it depends on how you shoot. I have worked with many many Fashion photographers who shoot so fast that they would completely freak out if they had to wait to take the next frame when the have a model, client, Ad exec, ect on the shoot all waiting. A camera should never cripple a shoot. This is where multiple cameras and backs(and a few good assistants) were a necessity. Just because you perhaps don't shoot that way does not mean its not the norm or that somehow the photographer is at fault if he is not willing(nor his clients) to put up with a buffer of whatever size. Thats a sure way to loose a future job.
Well, even Phase One doesn't market the P25 or P45 as a fast fashion shooter. They steer you more towards the P21 or P30 for faster shooting. And Mamiya doesn't market the ZD as a fasion shooter either.
However, I think Frank already knew the limitations of the shooting speed of the ZD back, which is why he does great with the back, while others complain, complain, and complain some more.
I don't want or will be on anyones payroll.
However I'm not destroying a system with reasons that are not valid.
Again some people will need more fps, but I think most fashion photographers will not NEED more buffer.
HAVING more is always a good thing, don't understand me wrong, but it's not a necessity.
Let's put it different.
A bigger buffer or allowing me to shoot faster is not worth 3000,00 for me.
I have not been all positive about the back, the display sucks, the tethered shooting still doesn't go as I want, I mentioned that allready in my review.
HOWEVER again, I think that there will always be something not to like about a system, the real question is, can YOU adapt.
Certain fast-moving lifestyle/fashion applications and sports are never going to be the ZD's forté. I don't think anyone serious about buying one would expect that. Having said that, it feels quite workable to me to fire a ten shot sequence reasonably rapidly. I don't see that as a deal-breaker, personally. YMMV, naturally.
Equally for weddings, and slow-moving portraiture/fashion, it's a fabulous tool: no debate.
My particular interest in the camera is the same as any architecture / interiors / landscape photographer's: I'm happy to work slow and bulky, shooting slow and bulky subjects, but the accuracy and quality must be uncompromised as far as possible. Wide angle support is adequate for the 1.17x chip, but this long exposure noise is more troublesome than I'd imagined.
At six seconds, ISO 50 and 100, Lightroom tames the noise effectively enough, at the expense of a little detail, but ten seconds is borderline unusable, and fifteen seconds can only be used if you're prepared to dot and dab hot RGB pixels for half an hour every image.
Shooting a lit building at twilight, the ZD's dynamic range is a revelation: it's so much better than a Canon DSLR. But . . . but . . . but, only if you can keep the exposure at or below six seconds at ISO 100. And that places unusual demands on the wide aperture performance of the lens. I just hope that somewhere in that narrow range of opportunity there's a way to work with it for that application, otherwise it's back to the 5D and multiple exposures. With that thing I could leave the shutter open all night . . .
Certain fast-moving lifestyle/fashion applications and sports are never going to be the ZD's forté. I don't think anyone serious about buying one would expect that. Having said that, it feels quite workable to me to fire a ten shot sequence reasonably rapidly. I don't see that as a deal-breaker, personally. YMMV, naturally.
Equally for weddings, and slow-moving portraiture/fashion, it's a fabulous tool: no debate.
My particular interest in the camera is the same as any architecture / interiors / landscape photographer's: I'm happy to work slow and bulky, shooting slow and bulky subjects, but the accuracy and quality must be uncompromised as far as possible. Wide angle support is adequate for the 1.17x chip, but this long exposure noise is more troublesome than I'd imagined.
At six seconds, ISO 50 and 100, Lightroom tames the noise effectively enough, at the expense of a little detail, but ten seconds is borderline unusable, and fifteen seconds can only be used if you're prepared to dot and dab hot RGB pixels for half an hour every image.
Shooting a lit building at twilight, the ZD's dynamic range is a revelation: it's so much better than a Canon DSLR. But . . . but . . . but, only if you can keep the exposure at or below six seconds at ISO 100. And that places unusual demands on the wide aperture performance of the lens. I just hope that somewhere in that narrow range of opportunity there's a way to work with it for that application, otherwise it's back to the 5D and multiple exposures. With that thing I could leave the shutter open all night . . .
I respect what you wrote here; very well said indeed. The P20 is suggested no more than 10 seconds but I was able to get at least 30 seconds exposure but by 40 seconds I begin to see the confetti that your images showed. The P30+ and all of the P+ series are very nice with up to 1 hour of exposure without any problem.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
I don't want or will be on anyones payroll.
However I'm not destroying a system with reasons that are not valid.
Again some people will need more fps, but I think most fashion photographers will not NEED more buffer.
HAVING more is always a good thing, don't understand me wrong, but it's not a necessity.
Let's put it different.
A bigger buffer or allowing me to shoot faster is not worth 3000,00 for me.
I have not been all positive about the back, the display sucks, the tethered shooting still doesn't go as I want, I mentioned that allready in my review.
HOWEVER again, I think that there will always be something not to like about a system, the real question is, can YOU adapt....Show more →
I hated when folks accusing you for something that they do not know. You have provided true successful results for what you do best and that is what really matter.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
I don't want or will be on anyones payroll.
Haven't you already admitted approaching Mamiya for some kind of sponsorship?
You keep giving these glowing reviews about image quality. I'm very picky and can see that the image quality is slightly better then a 1Ds II, but not near enough to give up 3 fps with a bigger buffer & a higher ISO capabilities.
It depends what kind of fashion shooting that you do, more static poses, then the 1.2 FPS is no big deal. Try catching fleating moments @ 1 FPS!! Your gonna lose a lot of keepers.
Seems that the P25+ would score heavily over the ZD for long exposures, but the cost differential is huge, and at ISO 50 / 100, in most other areas, the extra cost isn't justified. At ISO 400 the P25+ looks very, very clean – especially compared to the ZD. However, we are talking about a $27K back in comparison to an $8K one!
I've now shot the ZD back at most ISO / shutter speed combinations and have found the ceiling of this sample at least: 8 seconds / ISO 160. Nothing any faster or longer is manageable for colour noise without manual intervention.
Fortunately, the 50mm shift is excellent from f4-f8. Shooting under street lighting at night, or dimly lit interiors from the outside in late twilight is do-able at ISO125 / f5.6 / 8 seconds. The camera and the lens are at the edge of, but still just inside, their comfort zone at these settings.
hubsand wrote:
I've now shot the ZD back at most ISO / shutter speed combinations and have found the ceiling of this sample at least: 8 seconds / ISO 160. Nothing any faster or longer is manageable for colour noise without manual intervention.
.
Seems like that ceiling would be an issue for a lot of Architectural and interior shooting where you might need something like F16-F22 for depth of field and where you might be either shooting entirely or mixing ambient light with strobe. That also would cause some issues for available light Landscape shooting. These are two areas where I thought this back might really shine.
I'm not asking Mamiya for a sponsor ship, we are trying to get the name of our studio known and are looking for coörperations, HOWEVER I will NEVER EVER say something I cannot back.
The fact that you claim that the quality is only slightly better than the 1DsII proofs that you still don't understand or know what the real difference is.
Does the 1DsII have a AA filter ?
Yes it does, so the sharpness is ALOT less natural than the non AA filter MF system.
Does the 1DsII have a sensor twice the format of MF ?
No it doesn't so the circle of confussion is much smaller, so the control of DOF and depth of the picture is much less than with the MF system.
Does the 1DsII have 12 stops dynamic range ?
No it stops at arround 7-8.
Does the 1DsII have a real ISO50 ?
No, highlights are lit at ISO100.
And I can go on and on.
It's a shame I have to repeat this over and over again.
It's not only about the freaking MP's
It's about the whole system, MF differs from 35mm in a big way.
I don't do static poses most of the time, I do alot of movement and I had to adjust to the different timing of the larger mirror but when you are used to that you can shoot the same stuff I did with the 5D.
But than again maybe I'm different, I don't need 3fps to get a good shot, I know how to time and shoot.
And again my flash system don't even support 3fps, it can keep up with my shooting style (and more IF needed).
On the other hand, when I do need the speed I can always switch to the 5D, again it's the tools for the job, there is no overal winner.
Does the 1DsII have a AA filter ?
Yes it does, so the sharpness is ALOT less natural than the non AA filter MF system.******
Compared to film, even with the AA filter digital images look much sharper than prints from the film days, and with good lenses you often dont need any sharpening at all.
Does the 1DsII have a sensor twice the format of MF ?
No it doesn't so the circle of confussion is much smaller, so the control of DOF and depth of the picture is much less than with the MF system.*******
Yes for the sensor but the DOF comment is wrong, in fact you have better control of DOF with 35mm cameras, there are many fast lenses which will give you a very narrow DOF and stopping down provides more DOF than on a MF system.
Does the 1DsII have 12 stops dynamic range ?
No it stops at arround 7-8.******
The 1DsII has 8 2/3 of DR and I really would like to know how these cameras compare at ISO 400. Is there any DR advantage left?
Does the 1DsII have a real ISO50 ?
No, highlights are lit at ISO100.****
Yes, but the Mamiya has no ISO 800/1600/3200. Dont see the point here
And I can go on and on.*****
Please do, there is a lot of missing data which makes it really difficult to understand the advantage of the ZD back over a 1Ds.
The nice thing with Hubsands thread is that he shares his experience and he is open to critics, thanks.
