When I posted a handsdown review I meant a review which should not be taken as a full technical review with resolution charts etc. it was meant as MY opinion of the back and the things I encounter with it and my thoughts on it.
In other words I did some side by side comparisions for MY situation and explained what I thought of it.
Now I'm being accussed of playing a game with people by giving them the idea the ZD back is the perfect device for everyone and it's plain 100% perfect.
I however NEVER posted that, and also did not make the review Rosy, I told all the downfalls (the display, the noise at high ISO's, the buffer etc.) but I also explained that this is not a problem in MY workflow.
As soon as I found out some real problems I also posted them straight away.
A normal review runs for a week and is done, when I did that I would have had a serious problem because I would have never run into the problems I found after a few weeks (which AGAIN are being solved by Mamiya if I can believe them of course ) in other words it was an ongoing BLOG report in which people got (I think) a great insight in what I was doing with the back.
Some people will buy the back anyway because the NEVER shoot tethered (I know a lot of people only shoot on the card), other photographers like me will wait out and see if Mamiya fixes the tethered shooting, for me that takes too long because I have no spare MF back so I upgraded.
In my (maybe twisted seeing some replies) way of thinking I did nothing wrong.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
In my (maybe twisted seeing some replies) way of thinking I did nothing wrong.
So slamming anyone that posted anything objective (or challenged your review) about the camera's functionality and quality is part of your personel review process?
You definitely came across as someone who wasn't objective about the camera at all and looked more and more like there had to be a reason for such a rosy review when others were pointing out flaws.
It sucks at high ISO, the buffer is to slow and there is no 400mm lens.
YES.
Of course I will respond.
Again the MF system is not intended for sports, birding or night photography.
It's the same as giving negative critiques about a 15mm lens because the birds are so freaking small, well ok than you have to buy a 300mm or 400mm lens. But than they will argue that the field of view is not wide enough.
For me it's was VERY clear from the start, with MF I would do ALOT of sacrifices but in the departments were it counted for me, controlled light and model photography it would EXCELL in all departments.
And that's what happened.
Only on the buffer there can be some discussion, for me the 11 frame buffer was enough but I can think some people will claim it's not enough, I have given MY opinion about that, if you don't like that that's ok but don''t say I paint something rosy while it's actually deep black.
There will always be people who are NOT thinking straight when buying into MF and will be very dissapointed, I never ever claimed it would replace my DSLR completly, I did claim however that it would replace my DLSR for my studio work.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
There are no SETTINGS applied like with JPEG but there is ALOT going on before that in the hardware
There is noise suspression on higher ISO's in as far as I know all DSLRs.
Sorry, but not for RAW in Canon DSLRs. If only long-exposure NR, but it could be switched-off by 1 click.
It was just to point out that there is alot going on were people don't expect it.
I pointed it out because I found my 5D to loose detail at higher ISOs something my back doesn't as much, but there is more noise.
There noise avoidance - on chip correction of what would have been an inaccuate measurement. And there noise supression - fixing the stuff we find visually unappealing.
I doubt we have any untouched "raw" files anymore. Secret stuff.
This is from Imaging Resource which does appear clearly to indicate that the Canon's do in fact perform Noise Reduction right at the Sensor which would affect all images, jpeg or Raw:
"Improved on-chip active noise reduction. This also seems to be a feature that's working is way through Canon's SLR models. One of the unique advantages of the active CMOS sensor technology developed by Canon is the ability to perform noise-reduction signal processing right on the sensor chip itself. (Before the signal is ever transferred off to the external processing circuitry.) In recent sensors, Canon has implemented a more advanced form of this processing that has the effect of reducing the noise levels seen by the camera's processor. This helps noise levels across the board."
I'm trying to avoid getting too involved in a debate about the ZD until I've had another week or so to play with it and mull things over, but a few points seem to me now to be uncontroversial:
• Mamiya still has some work to do ironing out software wrinkles in the ZD: a) the Dalsa chip is capable of better controlled performance in other backs – and b) we shouldn't be seeing these communication problems between the body and the back, or the back and the PC. My particular ZD back has manifested a troubling and wide ranging plethora of bizarre malfunctions that may or may not be related to its communication with the AFD body; Frank can't shoot tethered . . .
• As Frank always said, the ZD cannot be considered a substitute for a DSLR. However, the number of areas in which it excels relative to a 1Ds II or 5D are fewer than I expected. Several times now, I've taken both systems out on location, and the ZD either didn't make it out of the bag or bought nothing much to the party when it did. Controlled shooting at leisure, comparing the best Mamiya lenses with Zeiss and Leica lenses on the 5D, show a relatively small margin of superiority for the ZD in ideal conditions, but the balance quickly tips against it in many typical circumstances.
• The ideal partner to a ZD at present seems to be the Nikon D3: the low-light, weatherproof, rapid AF capabilities of the Nikon dovetail perfectly with the weakness of the ZD. However, the new 1Ds III may well offer a very appealing compromise in one body: it seems likely that the D3 will be a faster camera (in both senses) than the Canon, and the Mamiya ZD has an edge in DR and that attractive 'large format' rendition – but carefully post-produced 14-bit 21MP Canon files are going to be very fine indeed and the sheer jack-of-all-trades flexibility of the 1Ds III will be persuasive.
• For uncompromised architecture and landscape shooting, the bar is still set pretty high: it's just not possible to use the ZD back in low light. Period. For 1Ds III-bettering performance, you need to be looking at mid-range Phase and Leaf backs, plus something like the Silvestri Flexicam and a couple of those really lovely Apo Digitar and Rodenstock HR lenses. This is the system I would love to upgrade to, but you're looking at a minimum $22K entry point for a three wide lens stitching back system with movements. A very, very similar level of performance and utility is going to be obtainable with a 1Ds III and Zörk adaptors for less than half that cost.
• Again, for landscape and architecture, multiple exposures are frequently going to be necessary: just as it may be necessary for a 1Ds to shoot twice for DR to match an MF back, the larger sensor may require two captures to match the 1Ds' DOF.
• Concerns remain that the lenses may not live up to the demands of the 1Ds III. I also have concerns about Mamiya's range of wide lenses: concerns I don't have about the Pentax 645 range! However, in the last week, Canon has demonstrated a fresh commitment to high-resolution wide primes in the promising form of the Mark II 14mm, which looks on paper like a lens you might not be scared to use on a 1Ds III. Similarly, the new Nikon 14-24mm may prove to be a killer WA solution if the specs materialise. And Zeiss may still have a few aces to play in ZF form . . . .
All of which leads me to conclude that a switch away from Canon at this point would be premature. When I do, it will be with deeper pockets . . . .
On point one, do you still have lockups with a new back ?
that should not happen, when shooting on the card it should work without locking up, if not please contact your dealer for the new firmware.
As I mentioned in my review the best difference between the 5D and the ZD back was the depth in the pictures, the ZD back was giving me incredible 3D like pictures which I could not get out of the 5D not even with the best L glass.
And indeed dynamic range.
However I think you also have to be realistic.
The difference will get smaller and smaller while prices are going up, it's the same as in high-end audio.
For me the difference was clearly seen and worth the money, but I have to admit I'm not in the market for the resolution, I wanted more 3D feel and dynamic range in my pictures, smoother gradiants and real ISO50 (for my outside flash).
Straight out of the cam you are right on the issue of first look, but try to pixelpush the shots you will see the ZD files will give you MUCH more to work with than the 5D or 1DsII files.
The 1DsIII will also be tested by me when it's released (*just for fun) but I'm afraid it will be more resolution but not more depth of the shots and more dynamic range.
The main reasons I switched to MF.
It will however always be the question is it worth 5 times the ammount of the 5D, and for some it will, for some it won't.
The difference is not 5 times that's for sure
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
It was just to point out that there is alot going on were people don't expect it.
I pointed it out because I found my 5D to loose detail at higher ISOs something my back doesn't as much, but there is more noise.
there was a review about the 1ds2 and the leaf 22mp back about a year or two ago. I remember that they found that the canons delivered equal or even better IQ/detail at iso 400 and above. I would be surprised to see the ZD doing better than the Leaf
When shooting with CF cards, I've had the AFD body not recognise the back or locking it out without warning. I have a raggedy 100px deep red discolouration in the top right corner of every frame. Sometimes the backs just falls over and cycles from a black to a grey screen. At ISO 50, I can't shoot longer than 8 seconds without hot confetti; at ISO 100, the limit is closer to 2 seconds. My particular back is defective, and Mamiya has offered to replace it, but I lack confidence that a replacement will be worthwhile.
PERSONALLY I found the noise increasing alot from 200 and up.
400 is usable but it's not like ISO400 on a Canon.
What I did notice however is that when I look at a ISO1600 or ISO3200 shot of the 5D there is ALOT of detail missing compared to the ISO100 shot of the same camera.
When I compare the ISO400 of the ZD with a ISO100 shot there is less missing than I would expect from the Canon example.
Maybe that explains it a bit more ?
It's no use testing a 400ISO Canon against a 400ISO MF back.
400ISO is the max on the Leaf and ZD (originally it was 200 for the leaf as far as I know), so you would actually have to look at the max for the canon.
But than again, and that shows my point it's a totally different application.
@hubsand,
the lockups should not happen with the back, I have shot several weeks very intens with the combi and got no lockups on the card (maybe one or two, but even the 5D crashes sometimes).
With the old back I could not finish one session without at least 2-3 lockups.
But that was a problem with the first firmware.
When changing the back please take care of the purple artifacts on ISO400.
Longer exposures should also be better with the new firmware.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
As I mentioned in my review the best difference between the 5D and the ZD back was the depth in the pictures, the ZD back was giving me incredible 3D like pictures which I could not get out of the 5D not even with the best L glass.
Frank, just curious. Have you used or shot any of the alternative Zeiss lenses on the 5D. I have not seen a Canon lens match the color rendition and "3D" look I see form some of my alternative lenses such as the Zeiss lenses. I have even seen this form very inexpensive older Pentax screw mount lenses. Have a look through the Alternative Images thread for some examples in the pat few days(I'm thinking of the Pentax 55 1.8)
Your High end Audio analogy is right on. Same with most things. After a certain level, one pays a hugely dissproportionate amount for very tiny, subtle improvements.
I did not shoot with zeiss lenses on the 5D.
I did a direct comparison in the studio with a 135mm L and at that time an Hasselblad H2D22 and it was clear as crystal.
When you delve more into the matter it's logical, the bigger sensor will give you the more 3D look, I don't think glass will go ALL the way.
It can be some of the way by the way. I did see a huge difference for example between some lenses on the 5D.
The jump in 3Dimensionality was there when I switched from the 20D to the 5D, which for me is when looking back logical because the sensor is bigger.
I guess (but almost no for certain) that the size of the sensor has a big part in that 3D look.
J.A.F. Doorhof wrote:
I did not shoot with zeiss lenses on the 5D.
I did a direct comparison in the studio with a 135mm L and at that time an Hasselblad H2D22 and it was clear as crystal.
When you delve more into the matter it's logical, the bigger sensor will give you the more 3D look, I don't think glass will go ALL the way.
It can be some of the way by the way. I did see a huge difference for example between some lenses on the 5D.
The jump in 3Dimensionality was there when I switched from the 20D to the 5D, which for me is when looking back logical because the sensor is bigger.
I guess (but almost no for certain) that the size of the sensor has a big part in that 3D look....Show more →
I agree and its always as it has been pretty much when going to a larger format. I have been very impressed though with just how much of an impact various lenses have had on the fingerprint of the image and the 3D quality with digital. In the case of many of the Zeiss lenses and probably the APO Leica's, its as if a faint fog has been removed from the image...the fog created fromt he AA filter pretty much.
) in other words it was an ongoing BLOG report in which people got (I think) a great insight in what I was doing with the back.