Presumably this thread will be moved if a medium format digital thread is established, but in the meantime, I suspect that the people using 'alternative' lenses on Canon cameras are the same people who would be interested in taking the same MO up to the larger format now that prices are comparable (actually, a Mamiya 645 / ZD system works out a little cheaper than a 1Ds II / III with those 'alternative' lenses!)
Well, simply a great objective review thus far. Cannot wait to see some of your images from the various mamiya Glass. I'm also very interested in your statements regarding noise if the exposure is not nailed and needing to always expose to the right. As a rule, this is opposite to the way I normally work with my 5D as I always shoot to preserve that highlight detail and know I can go digging into the shadows a lot before noise becomes an issue. Seems your saying that the Mamiya will not easily blow the highlights but forget about recovering anything from those shadows.
Absolutely. First impressions (and I can feel Frank about to join in here) are that it's 'differently forgiving' from the 5D. The Canon chips are inherently better engineered to dampen noise.
With the 5D, up to ISO400, I'm used to pushing shadows and midtones as much as two stops in post production before noise becomes an issue. Try doing that with the ZD and you'll be looking at chroma noise so ghastly it would be ruinous at web-res. At ISO 50-100 I can push it maybe 1.5 stops before noise becomes troublesome enough to need blurring away by LR's noise reduction. You do not want to try the same trick with a ZD back at ISO 200. However, at ISO 100 the files look much more robust than the ZD body samples I've seen.
In general shooting, I'm planning on keeping +2/3 of a stop permanently dialled in by by default. Again, I don't know whether the Mark II has better metering, but my Mark I is prone to underexpose in all the situations you'd expect it to do so. The camera is so slow anyway – in light and speed terms – another second on the shutter hardly seems to matter!
Nice review, I got the ZD back last week, using it with an AFD, had been using the Kodak pro back. Tomorrow the RZ67 II D (with 50mm ULD & 140mm Macro) and adapter plate arrive. I also picked up an AF and sent it in for the free upgrade to AFD. Maybe we can get the MF sticky thread back if enough folks buy a ZD.
Here's a shot handheld (full frame and 100% actual pixels inset, unsharpened) with the Pentacon 6 Zeiss Jena Sonnar 180mm f2.8, wide open at f2.8 and ISO 80 at a distance of about 2m. http://www.16-9.net/raw/nathan_zd.jpg
Even with +2/3 exposure compensation it still needed lifting almost another whole stop in LR. This is pretty much an out-of-the-box conversion apart from that: no highlight recovery was applied. I am right on the bottom of the learning curve for LR, and not enjoying it.
What's going on with his right shoulder where the highlight transitions to dark? Looks like some Green Aberrations of some sort. How does this area look at 100%.
SLane wrote:
Nice review, I got the ZD back last week, using it with an AFD, had been using the Kodak pro back. Tomorrow the RZ67 II D (with 50mm ULD & 140mm Macro) and adapter plate arrive. I also picked up an AF and sent it in for the free upgrade to AFD. Maybe we can get the MF sticky thread back if enough folks buy a ZD.
What's this about a free upgrade for an AF to AFD? I have an AF.
Now that I'm looking at the image on my Studio Monitor, I'm also seeing some slight green Moire pattern in the 100% crop you posted Hubsand. Nothing serious, but its there along with some other strange artifacts such as white specks.
Lotusm50 wrote:
And I thought that was just the typical English complexion. ;-)
How dare you, sir! You besmirch our good name and character; yea, I shall have satisfaction or be hung for a gosling's snitchet, in sooth.
This is an f2.8 MF lens shot wide open, but CA is very well controlled in the Sonnar 180 usually, manifesting as a little blue/yellow fringing in the corners of the frame. I can't pinpoint the green aberration, and LR can't correct it. Looks like a manual PS correction job.
I at first thought the Green Aberration was a lens issue and it might be but the Moire and white specks are a sensor or processing issue I would think. Its odd that there is an obvious green cast to the skin in some areas but then in others the skin looks more magenta. I wonder if the same issue would show up using the Mamiya lenses in the same situation.
I've just been experimenting with the RAW file in LR and DxO . . . when the file is developed 'Zeroed', the fringe manifests as a subtle dark halo. However, the meter was tricked by the sunlight reflecting off the skin and underexposed by about a stop. Restoring this in post, and correspondingly upping the saturation, pushes the halo into a green fringe.
Given the same underexposed file, DxO also processes it with a green fringe. Manual PS correction does a better job.
Everything about this camera punishes you for the slightest underexposure.
hubsand wrote:
I've just been experimenting with the RAW file in LR and DxO . . . when the file is developed 'Zeroed', the fringe manifests as a subtle dark halo. However, the meter was tricked by the sunlight reflecting off the skin and underexposed by about a stop. Restoring this in post, and correspondingly upping the saturation, pushes the halo into a green fringe.
Given the same underexposed file, DxO also processes it with a green fringe. Manual PS correction does a better job.
Everything about this camera punishes you for the slightest underexposure.
That's why it doesn't seem to be better then a 1ds II after everything is considered.
Image quality seems to be slightly better, but not worth all the other stuff you have to accept.
