Yes Tariq, this is why when we paid for something in the $6.7K we must live with the deficiency of the back. If money was not the issue we all be on the Phase One back for sure in which I am already on it. But as you can see just because I own the Phase One P30+ and P20 does not mean I have to degrade Mamiya for their efforts to put something so affordable for photographer to use. Perhaps this will affect the medium format market some what so other photographers do not have to paid for what I paid for my Phase One backs. If you look at the Leica Forum you will also see that the wedding photographers more likely to have both the Canon 5D along with their M8 to do wedding. Both system offers them something the other one cannot. Here the ZD back also is a niche to our work as well and I am very encouring to see the price on medium format back coming down so photographers like you who use medium format system before can reconsider their tool option again.

For me when I shoot group picture and enlarge them for clients in the film day I even took my 8X10 Sinar P2 with me; what a monster in weight. Today I am very happy to bring my P30+ or any of the medium format digital back to take large groups of the wedding parties. This is a much lighter system for me than Sinar P2. I guess I am a nut when it comes to resolution and for my clients; I will try my hardest to give them more than what they are expecting from me. There is a great reward to see your clients satisfaction.

Yep, Competition is great thing.

I don't wish to "degrade" Mamiya(I think they make fine cameras) but to only point out both the Pros and Cons of the System which is what I think is one of the great things about these Forums - getting all sides of an issue from people with many different and varied expereinces. I think Frank(and its of course only my opinion) gave a slightly overly rosy picture of the Mamiya ZD's capabilities without perhaps complementing that with some of its obvious deficiencies. Promoting the ZD Back as an ideal tool for Fashion and Wedding work is a bit of a stretch based on its inherent capabilities. Will it work for some, sure. Its just not the single ideal tool for most who work in those two areas and I don't think it should be heralded as such.

Pham Minh Son wrote:
For me when I shoot group picture and enlarge them for clients in the film day I even took my 8X10 Sinar P2 with me; what a monster in weight. Today I am very happy to bring my P30+ or any of the medium format digital back to take large..

Wow, I'm sure that impressed them at the wedding.

Tariq, I agree with you that the Mamiya ZD back is not the all solution back. I do however, admire how Frank use his tool and this is where I am coming from. In the film day I have to work so much harder to get my image for my one time shot client and no second chance and I have to do whatever it took not to fail. I love the passion of Frank's work.

-Son

Wow, I'm sure that impressed them at the wedding.

I don not know perhaps they think I am a nut case at that moment.

Pham Minh Son wrote:
Tariq, I agree with you that the Mamiya ZD back is not the all solution back. I do however, admire how Frank use his tool and this is where I am coming from. In the film day I have to work so much harder to get my image for my one time shot client and no second chance and I have to do whatever it took not to fail. I love the passion of Frank's work.

-Son

And, Frank is a master at lighting as well. Its easy for someone to see his ZD Beauty images and think, wow, look what the ZD is capable of but most of us know that those images have more to do with Franks abilities than what camera back was used.

Tariq, yes it is important for folks to know that this is not a toy but it is a very capable back when used it properly with the right application. For the others in a more basic level try to be like Frank.

Ok, so you guys are establishing that a ZD back, in the right hands, could be a great tool for a wedding photographer, with certain limitations. . . . What about for landscape photography?

I am watching the ZD back user evaluations, and my sense is that, for an avid landscape photographer, it's an excellent, albeit imperfect, solution. Many landscape photographers, like me, sell prints, but are not professionals, i.e., I do not make a sizable income from it, and do not depend at all on landscape photography for my livelihood. I would much prefer a P25 back, but I'm not going to spend that kind of money ($18k or so used, I think from capture integrations). So, I'm evaluating the ZD back and will compare it to the new Canon IDsIII when it comes out.

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

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

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.

-Son

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.

Well said Frank

@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.

-Son

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 could almost shoot @ 2 fps with an RZ with a 20 frame roll!!

I 'm really starting to think Frank is on (or trying to get on) mamiya's payroll.

...and shooting a group shot at a wedding with an 8x10 is just silly Son. Everyone knows 20x24 polaroids are what the real pros use.

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 . . .

I'd also like my illuminated LCD back!

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'd also like my illuminated LCD back!

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.

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.