This topic is in the 2011 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2011Shift this...
p.1 #1Shift this...
Just playing around.
Here's an image of my "new to me" Mamiya M645 C 50mm f/4 Shift lens, shifted 15mm, and mounted on a Mirex adapter that's shifted an additional 10mm. The second image is from the 25mm shifted lens; t = 1 sec., f/11, ISO 800, poor lighting.
It's actually better than I expected. The 100% top-right crop shows a lot of detail in the flag (Go Pats!), and a little CA on the vertical white/navy border. The full image in the Navigator window below the crop shows pronounced vignetting at the left of the image, which might be the edge of the lens image circle, or maybe an internal edge on the Mirex or the lens itself. Probably the latter, as I expect the M645 shift image circle is plenty large to cover the 1DsIII sensor with 25mm of shift.
I expect that the IQ might be better if I shifted the lens 10mm and the Mirex 15mm, but that'll have to wait. I won't have a chance to do anything serious with this kit for at least a couple of weeks. When I do, I'll dredge up this thread and add it here.
Cheers, Jim
Here's an image of my "new to me" Mamiya M645 C 50mm f/4 Shift lens, shifted 15mm, and mounted on a Mirex adapter that's shifted an additional 10mm. The second image is from the 25mm shifted lens; t = 1 sec., f/11, ISO 800, poor lighting.
It's actually better than I expected. The 100% top-right crop shows a lot of detail in the flag (Go Pats!), and a little CA on the vertical white/navy border. The full image in the Navigator window below the crop shows pronounced vignetting at the left of the image, which might be the edge of the lens image circle, or maybe an internal edge on the Mirex or the lens itself. Probably the latter, as I expect the M645 shift image circle is plenty large to cover the 1DsIII sensor with 25mm of shift.
I expect that the IQ might be better if I shifted the lens 10mm and the Mirex 15mm, but that'll have to wait. I won't have a chance to do anything serious with this kit for at least a couple of weeks. When I do, I'll dredge up this thread and add it here.
Cheers, Jim
Feb 28, 2011 at 04:13 PM
p.1 #2Shift this...
Interesting. Nice piece of machinery and optics altogether! I like long focus throw lenses.
I'm curious how C 50mm f/4 Shift compares with C 55/2.8N especially distortion wise.
I should really put some serious effort in funding the Mirex.
I'm curious how C 50mm f/4 Shift compares with C 55/2.8N especially distortion wise.
I should really put some serious effort in funding the Mirex.
Feb 28, 2011 at 04:52 PM
p.1 #3Shift this...
Hey Jim,
Now that's real shift...
Looks like a trend is starting...and I hope to see some images soon from your rig.
Thanks for the comments on my T&S conversion, I have to re-learn that whole world again in this format. My Linhof is a "cakewalk" by comparison.
Regards,
Edd
Now that's real shift...
Looks like a trend is starting...and I hope to see some images soon from your rig.
Thanks for the comments on my T&S conversion, I have to re-learn that whole world again in this format. My Linhof is a "cakewalk" by comparison.
Regards,
Edd
Feb 28, 2011 at 04:57 PM
p.1 #4Shift this...
Hi Edd,
I used to have a Shen Hao 4x5 field camera. Talk about shift this...
I used to have a Shen Hao 4x5 field camera. Talk about shift this...
Feb 28, 2011 at 06:19 PM
p.1 #5Shift this...
mirkoc wrote:
Interesting. Nice piece of machinery and optics altogether! I like long focus throw lenses.
I'm curious how C 50mm f/4 Shift compares with C 55/2.8N especially distortion wise.
I should really put some serious effort in funding the Mirex.
Hi mirkoc,
I'm curious as well. About all I can say now is that the 55/2.8N is a lot smaller and lighter.
Interesting. Nice piece of machinery and optics altogether! I like long focus throw lenses.
I'm curious how C 50mm f/4 Shift compares with C 55/2.8N especially distortion wise.
I should really put some serious effort in funding the Mirex.
Hi mirkoc,
I'm curious as well. About all I can say now is that the 55/2.8N is a lot smaller and lighter.
Feb 28, 2011 at 06:20 PM
p.1 #6Shift this...
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
Mar 01, 2011 at 02:03 AM
p.1 #7Shift this...
mirkoc wrote:
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
I have a fair few Leica R lenses and quite a few Mamiya 645 lenses but I can't say I've ever really compared them directly. Generally I'd say that the Mamiya glass is lower in contrast and possibly with softer colours. I find colours tend to be more saturated with Leica R glass, certainly more than my Canon lenses where I'm always cranking up the saturation in the RAW conversion but I tend to leave the Leica colours as they are.
The impression I get from Mamiya glass is of a smoother tonal gradation that I can't really explain. Maybe it's the slightly lower contrast but the images look more like medium format images as a result. I say this because I used to shoot cars (for a living) on medium format which gave the smooth tones that you need for that subject. The same image shot on 35mm, even Leica R with the finest film, looked poor in comparison and the difference was simply the smooth changes in tone and colour that you got on medium format and that was simply harder to get with 35mm.
Ironically, when I stopped using Leica R and started using Canon (film) I did shoot the same subjects with equivalent Leica R and Canon lenses to see how different they looked, if at all. The biggest difference was actually in tonal gradation and it was quite dramatic. Same subject, same light, same film, only lens/body was different yet the tonal gradation with the Leica R was much better than with Canon, yet I have never really seen this difference with digital, only film, and I have no idea why. Some of this improved tonal gradation seems to happen with the Maiya lenses, IMHO.
JJ
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
I have a fair few Leica R lenses and quite a few Mamiya 645 lenses but I can't say I've ever really compared them directly. Generally I'd say that the Mamiya glass is lower in contrast and possibly with softer colours. I find colours tend to be more saturated with Leica R glass, certainly more than my Canon lenses where I'm always cranking up the saturation in the RAW conversion but I tend to leave the Leica colours as they are.
The impression I get from Mamiya glass is of a smoother tonal gradation that I can't really explain. Maybe it's the slightly lower contrast but the images look more like medium format images as a result. I say this because I used to shoot cars (for a living) on medium format which gave the smooth tones that you need for that subject. The same image shot on 35mm, even Leica R with the finest film, looked poor in comparison and the difference was simply the smooth changes in tone and colour that you got on medium format and that was simply harder to get with 35mm.
Ironically, when I stopped using Leica R and started using Canon (film) I did shoot the same subjects with equivalent Leica R and Canon lenses to see how different they looked, if at all. The biggest difference was actually in tonal gradation and it was quite dramatic. Same subject, same light, same film, only lens/body was different yet the tonal gradation with the Leica R was much better than with Canon, yet I have never really seen this difference with digital, only film, and I have no idea why. Some of this improved tonal gradation seems to happen with the Maiya lenses, IMHO.
JJ
Mar 01, 2011 at 02:37 AM
p.1 #8Shift this...
mirkoc wrote:
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
I have a couple of Mamiya lenses, but do not use them on Canon cameras but on the Mamiya ZD. It is not possible to answer in general, as of course there are differences in lens quality. For example the AF50mm/ 2,8 is of medium quality (quite ok when stopped down, but nothing special) - the 120mm F4 Macro is very good (clear step above the 80mm), the 150/3,5 is good, but also not amazing, the 50mm shift F4 (shown above) is a very good lens, even shifted it is sharp. I also have the 55mm Sekor C F2,8 N, a very sharp lens, made of light plastic.
I cannot know how many percent of total image quality are due to the ZD camera/ sensor) and how many due to the lenses, but the better ones (like the 50 shift and the 120 macro) are easily as good as the high quality Nikon and Canon equivalents. The nice part is really that you can buy such a shift lens for unter 400 bucks, and the 120 macro unter 250. Those are true bargains seen the optical quality. Together with the ZD camera that delivers a big step up from any Canon DSLR in terms of colour and dynamic ranger this setup is very affordable (I hardly paid more for the ZD body than for my Nikon d700) and - albeit slow to operate - and makes beautiful, high rez images.
(does anyone want to buy my low actuation SLRn? don't need it anymore now :-)
cheers
Bernie
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
I have a couple of Mamiya lenses, but do not use them on Canon cameras but on the Mamiya ZD. It is not possible to answer in general, as of course there are differences in lens quality. For example the AF50mm/ 2,8 is of medium quality (quite ok when stopped down, but nothing special) - the 120mm F4 Macro is very good (clear step above the 80mm), the 150/3,5 is good, but also not amazing, the 50mm shift F4 (shown above) is a very good lens, even shifted it is sharp. I also have the 55mm Sekor C F2,8 N, a very sharp lens, made of light plastic.
I cannot know how many percent of total image quality are due to the ZD camera/ sensor) and how many due to the lenses, but the better ones (like the 50 shift and the 120 macro) are easily as good as the high quality Nikon and Canon equivalents. The nice part is really that you can buy such a shift lens for unter 400 bucks, and the 120 macro unter 250. Those are true bargains seen the optical quality. Together with the ZD camera that delivers a big step up from any Canon DSLR in terms of colour and dynamic ranger this setup is very affordable (I hardly paid more for the ZD body than for my Nikon d700) and - albeit slow to operate - and makes beautiful, high rez images.
(does anyone want to buy my low actuation SLRn? don't need it anymore now :-)
cheers
Bernie
Mar 01, 2011 at 04:29 AM
p.1 #9Shift this...
I agree with Bernie,
the biggest draw for Mamiya glass (645AF & M645) for me is the image quality vs. price.
Build may not be the best but most of the AF glass is real light by medium format standards.
the biggest draw for Mamiya glass (645AF & M645) for me is the image quality vs. price.
Build may not be the best but most of the AF glass is real light by medium format standards.
Mar 01, 2011 at 04:39 AM
p.1 #10Shift this...
mirkoc wrote:
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
Leica R and Mamiya 645 on my 5D both exhibit smooth tonal gradation as JohnJ mentioned. Leica has the edge on sharpness, contrast and color saturation but a little tweaking and the latter two can be brought up to par. I prefer the bokeh of Mamiya lenses as it can be quite smooth and have a water color type rendering.
jcolwell,
how would you (and others too) describe Mamiya glass rendering in general? I find it similar to Leica sometimes. I haven't tried any of these yet, that's just an impression from web samples.
Leica R and Mamiya 645 on my 5D both exhibit smooth tonal gradation as JohnJ mentioned. Leica has the edge on sharpness, contrast and color saturation but a little tweaking and the latter two can be brought up to par. I prefer the bokeh of Mamiya lenses as it can be quite smooth and have a water color type rendering.
Mar 01, 2011 at 11:27 PM
p.1 #11Shift this...
The double shift is a very cool feature but with a 50mm lens, what kind of images do you foresee it will be useful for?
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Mar 02, 2011 at 12:58 AM