The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

High resolution back and RZ67 glass

MaxKißler

New member
Hi,

I'm just very curious. Has anyone ever used the RZ67 with a high resolution db, such as a P45+ or even the P40+/P65+ kind of sensor league? Since Mamiya is selling the RZ bundled up with an Aptus II 12 (which is even more demanding) I wonder whether all of the lenses are up to the task?

I'd be glad if you could share your opinions. Do you think it makes sense to use the RZ with an IQ160 for example?


Regards
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Hi,

I'm just very curious. Has anyone ever used the RZ67 with a high resolution db, such as a P45+ or even the P40+/P65+ kind of sensor league? Since Mamiya is selling the RZ bundled up with an Aptus II 12 (which is even more demanding) I wonder whether all of the lenses are up to the task?

I'd be glad if you could share your opinions. Do you think it makes sense to use the RZ with an IQ160 for example?


Regards

I recently performed a test with the Schneider 80mm LS and the Mamiya 110/2.8 Lens for RZ on a Phase One IQ180. The Schneider was sharper at f16, but not substantially. Ultimately I came away impressed with the ability of the RZ lens to hold up on a 5.2 micron pitch. I don't have the files anymore, but perhaps we will re-visit this when time allows.

The answer to your question (does it make sense?) begs some other questions. Why are you shooting an IQ160 (or why would you want to, meaning for what use)? And I don't mean, instead of a Nikon D800, I just mean, as opposed to a different digital back, like a P65+, or an Aptus-II 12, or a P45+, etc. Is it because of the size of the sensor, the quality of the LCD & Interface (meaning you shoot to CF Cards often)?

You would consider using an RZ with the IQ160 for what reason? Because you like the camera style and feel? The size or handling, the rail-focusing, the waist level finder, the ability to also shoot 6x7 film, etc?

If your application is critically pointed toward the utmost sharpness and resolution, perhaps the RZ isn't the best choice. If that is only one criteria, and perhaps not the critically most important one, then perhaps the IQ160 and RZ are a good fit in actuality, especially if you like shooting with the RZ camera, and you shoot to CF Card, as it allows the widest lens/viewfinder coverage for digital use with an RZ.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
 

Anders_HK

Member
Max,

I shoot Hy6 and suggest you to have a look at that one as comparison to RZ. What first got be into using WLF was looking through the WLF on an RZ and then a Hassy V. Then I was suggested Hy6 and am now a very happy owner of one. What Hy6 adds compared to RZ and Hassy V is AF and very precise such, and very superior balance, ergonomics and handling. With higher resolution back AF is very much needed when shooting portraits in my opinion. If we speak of landscapes that do not move then MF is suffice. The Rolleiflex lenses are top sharp and very wonderful characters. My Schneider Xenotar PQS AF 80/2.8 is the best lens I have ever owned - period.

I use it with 80MP Leaf AFi-II 12 back with rotating sensor and tilt display... and I just mentioned the other two things that are much useful on these type of a cameras; the rotating sensor and tilt display.

Best regards,
Anders
 

MaxKißler

New member
Hello Steve,

I was only referencing the IQ160 as an example. Right now I can't afford it but I simply know that I am one of those people who enjoy using medium format (film and digital) and aim to stick with MFD. Even if it is at times less convenient than just using a D800 for example.

Maybe I should phrase my question more precisely. I'd like to know until which sensor resolution (or back in this case) I may use my RZ lenses wide open without hesitation? (I'm very picky when it comes to sharpness)

Right now, I'm using an Aptus 22 which is anything but demanding. But I might want to upgrade sooner or later (well it's rather later in my case) so it'd be interesting to know.
I was mentioning the IQ160 because it is equally far out of reach as a P65+. Considering the amount of $$$ I'd safe I'd go for the P65+ in a heartbeat. It's not because I'm longing for higher resolution but the slightly larger sensor that is interesting to me. The IQs features may be nice or even groundbreaking but less important to justify its privetag imho.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
So I use a Pentax 645D with has a pixel pitch of 6um, which is similar to the backs you refer to. The old manual focus 645 film lenses can work really nicely on the camera, the 120mm marco is stellar. I have also used Pentax 67 lenses on the 645D and some of the lenses can be very good. So, yes, the RZ lenses may work really well, or they may not. It really depends on the lens. But I wouldn't dismiss a lens because it is a film lens.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I'd like to know until which sensor resolution (or back in this case) I may use my RZ lenses wide open without hesitation? (I'm very picky when it comes to sharpness)
It is irrelevant. If you have a 40MP of a particular size and the image is sharp, a higher resolution back (dividing the image into more pixels) does not make the image softer. (One great thing about an optics limit system is you are getting everything from the lens.) So if you like the image from a particular lens, given equal format size, the back should continue to produce equivalent images.

Pixel peeping distorts the view--the more pixels, the more magnification. But a print viewing condition does not vary with pixel resolution, but print size. A 40MP on a 16x20 sheet of paper is the same size as a 60MP image on a 16x20 sheet of paper.

BTW, the difference between 40MP and 60MP is only about a 22% in resolving power.

Personally, the sensor size is far more important than pixel resolution. And sensor performance is more important than pixel resolution. A 100MP back would be a huge pain in the neck as my images would fill drives really quickly and processing power is really taxed without any really great benefits to IQ. (Doubling pixel resolution doubles the files size at only a 40% increase in resolution.)
 

MaxKißler

New member
Anders,

I know you don't like Mamiya too much but for me the RZ67 and 645 AFD line are excellent cameras that I like working with. The Hy6 is not an option atm because of its format. I prefer 6x7 over 6x6 which makes a huge difference to me. Nevertheless I hope that DHW prospers and might become a more valid alternative to the 645DF in the future.

Shashin,

don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing a lens because of its age. In fact I'm probably using lens designs that are as old as I am. I've recently tested my Aptus22 in combination with a schneider 90mm super angulon, the old uncoated version (if it was originally single coated then you definitely couldn't tell) and got pretty decent results. Severe CAs but sharp all over.
 

MaxKißler

New member
It is irrelevant. If you have a 40MP of a particular size and the image is sharp, a higher resolution back (dividing the image into more pixels) does not make the image softer. (One great thing about an optics limit system is you are getting everything from the lens.) So if you like the image from a particular lens, given equal format size, the back should continue to produce equivalent images.

Pixel peeping distorts the view--the more pixels, the more magnification. But a print viewing condition does not vary with pixel resolution, but print size. A 40MP on a 16x20 sheet of paper is the same size as a 60MP image on a 16x20 sheet of paper. ...
I understand what you're saying but the goal is to achieve the highest possible magnification factor. And it'd be frustrating to spent so much money on a back and then not be able to utilize the expected increase in resolution. As we all know there won't be any improvements to the RZ lens line up.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I understand what you're saying but the goal is to achieve the highest possible magnification factor. And it'd be frustrating to spent so much money on a back and then not be able to utilize the expected increase in resolution. As we all know there won't be any improvements to the RZ lens line up.
Viewing distance is relative to print size--print size in essentially unlimited. There is no difference in the perception of an image between an 8x10 print at 300dpi viewed at 10" and a 16x20 print at 150dpi viewed at 20". And viewing distance is a robust illusion where even half viewing distance gives the illusion of sharpness. Every back you are looking at exceeds half viewing distance criteria.

As far as the backs you are looking at, there is no difference in pixel pitch between a 40MP back and a 60MP back, they are both 6um. You are simply getting two formats. The 60MP being larger will simply be better because it will be enlarged less to a given print size and the lenses don't need to work at as high a frequency. So if you think the 40MP is good, the 60MP will work as well if not better. The backs you are thinking of are not a direct comparison (the pixel resolution comparison is not an issue as they are the same size pixel).

I would look for some results from the RZ system--I can only speak of my experience of using other film systems with 6um pixel sensor and have no idea about specific RZ optics. There are plenty of folks here that use it and are very happy with the results. I think the crop factor is something you will need to think about as well. The larger sensor will be less confining--wides are going to be difficult to find for the RZ because of the crop factor down from 6x7. The RZ 50mm lens is a normal on a 40MP 33x44mm sensor.
 
I use the RZ with a 33mp back and don't hesitate to use any aperture with any of my lenses. They're that good! I'm guessing 60+MP should be no problem (provided you hit focus). Some "real world" observations (no test charts) with my three lenses:
65mm L-A: I can't really tell the difference wide open or stopped down aside from DOF and maybe a tiny bit more corner contrast.
110mm: Less contrasty wide open, but still very sharp. Stopped down improves sharpness still and increases contrast. I would guess it peaks around f4-f5.6.
210mm APO: No difference wide open or stopped down aside from DOF. An amazing optic technically.
 

torger

Active member
If pricing was unrelated to megapixel count one would want the most pixels all the time, becuase it does not hurt (if we ignore color cast on tech cam wides), but now that is not the case. With MFDB it is not fun to get into the window of diminishing returns if budget is a factor. Getting no more than you need can be a cost saving decision :)
 

MaxKißler

New member
Viewing distance is relative to print size--print size in essentially unlimited. There is no difference in the perception of an image between an 8x10 print at 300dpi viewed at 10" and a 16x20 print at 150dpi viewed at 20". And viewing distance is a robust illusion where even half viewing distance gives the illusion of sharpness. Every back you are looking at exceeds half viewing distance criteria.

As far as the backs you are looking at, there is no difference in pixel pitch between a 40MP back and a 60MP back, they are both 6um. You are simply getting two formats. The 60MP being larger will simply be better because it will be enlarged less to a given print size and the lenses don't need to work at as high a frequency. So if you think the 40MP is good, the 60MP will work as well if not better. The backs you are thinking of are not a direct comparison (the pixel resolution comparison is not an issue as they are the same size pixel).

I would look for some results from the RZ system--I can only speak of my experience of using other film systems with 6um pixel sensor and have no idea about specific RZ optics. There are plenty of folks here that use it and are very happy with the results. I think the crop factor is something you will need to think about as well. The larger sensor will be less confining--wides are going to be difficult to find for the RZ because of the crop factor down from 6x7. The RZ 50mm lens is a normal on a 40MP 33x44mm sensor.
Shashin, I value the information you share, however this is all not new to me.


I'm a photographer, therefore viewing distance is about 6"...

As I have previously said, I'm interested in a larger sized sensor. A 44mm*33mm back is a nogo for me. As you may not remember the almost 40mp P45+ is a 6.8um back. I should have probably asked precisely for the 6.8um and 6.0um backs. I just didn't want to sound too techy. I have experienced that the RZ lenses work very well with the 7.2um backs such as the Aptus 75 / 75s / II 7 (without ever owning one which is too bad). I was just wondering how far you can go without outresolving the lenses.
 

torger

Active member
I use the RZ with a 33mp back and don't hesitate to use any aperture with any of my lenses. They're that good! I'm guessing 60+MP should be no problem (provided you hit focus).
A bit off-topic but I must ask. I've played around with an RZ with a digital back, really nice look, but I was absolutely crap on nailing focus, it was like 1 out of 20 I succeeded. For my tech cam I use a 20x loupe and a few long seconds to nail focus on static subjects.

It seems to me that those that manage RZ and blads etc on live models must have some sort of superhuman vision and exactness/speed in finger movement :). Do you need to throw away a lot due to missed focus, or do you keep many "mildly misfocused" (error not visible in smalle prints), or have you developed such good focusing skill with it that you don't really miss more than with a modern autofocus camera?
 
A bit off-topic but I must ask. I've played around with an RZ with a digital back, really nice look, but I was absolutely crap on nailing focus, it was like 1 out of 20 I succeeded. For my tech cam I use a 20x loupe and a few long seconds to nail focus on static subjects.

It seems to me that those that manage RZ and blads etc on live models must have some sort of superhuman vision and exactness/speed in finger movement :). Do you need to throw away a lot due to missed focus, or do you keep many "mildly misfocused" (error not visible in smalle prints), or have you developed such good focusing skill with it that you don't really miss more than with a modern autofocus camera?
Its difficult for me to write a proper reply because there are so many factors that go into it. For example at around 10m or so focusing accuracy drops a lot while up close its very high. Good light is incredibly important too, in dim light or heavily back-lit focusing is practically guesswork. Fortunately countermeasures exist- have someone (or even the model herself) shine a bright light on her face so I can focus then lock it. Then I also usually explain to the models that they should try to restrict their movement to that plane. A Maxwell screen also helps a bit with accuracy. A tripod is best, too. I also very recently purchased a 4x loupe which covers the whole frame and makes focusing easier still. Obviously having a properly calibrated focusing screen is an absolute requirement. As for throwing away shots, it is annoying when the best shot is slightly out of focus (but more often than not it isn't), but despite this annoyance content > sharpness so I'm more lenient. Again, it really all depends. There are plenty of cases where its possible to get 100% focus accuracy with the right discipline, but shooting the 65mm wide open, handheld, further away, is not one of them. Then I miss... a lot :) But fortunately Mamiya makes an autofocus 645 camera too and its possible to use that when its more appropriate.
 

MaxKißler

New member
Its difficult for me to write a proper reply because there are so many factors that go into it. For example at around 10m or so focusing accuracy drops a lot while up close its very high. Good light is incredibly important too, in dim light or heavily back-lit focusing is practically guesswork. Fortunately countermeasures exist- have someone (or even the model herself) shine a bright light on her face so I can focus then lock it. Then I also usually explain to the models that they should try to restrict their movement to that plane. A Maxwell screen also helps a bit with accuracy. A tripod is best, too. I also very recently purchased a 4x loupe which covers the whole frame and makes focusing easier still. Obviously having a properly calibrated focusing screen is an absolute requirement. As for throwing away shots, it is annoying when the best shot is slightly out of focus (but more often than not it isn't), but despite this annoyance content > sharpness so I'm more lenient. Again, it really all depends. There are plenty of cases where its possible to get 100% focus accuracy with the right discipline, but shooting the 65mm wide open, handheld, further away, is not one of them. Then I miss... a lot :) But fortunately Mamiya makes an autofocus 645 camera too and its possible to use that when its more appropriate.
Would you please share the source of that loupe you speak of? ;)
 

Professional

Active member
Why not getting a drum scanner and keep using film and scan? I have RZ and i also look for a digital back, but i decided to keep RZ as film and i have a digital MF camera already and i should buy DB when i get a tech cam instead.
 

Aryan Aqajani

New member
It may be a bit irrelevant to your main question, however I'd like to share my experience!

I was shooting only film with my RZ until last week when I hired a HX701 adapter to test how it feels to shoot my DM22 back on it! I did a very quick test comparing RZ 110mm f/2.8 with Mamiya 645 80mm f/2.8 D and 80mm f/1.9 N! All I can say is that 110mm lens blow my mind away!!! It was more contrasty than 80mm f/1.9 N for sure! The depth of field between 80mm f/1.9 N and 110mm f/2.8 was quick the same, very shallows but the with different characteristics! The transition between the OOF and focused area was smoother, more film like! I was even sharper than 80mm f/2.8 D!

Interestingly, focusing accuracy with RZ surprised me! I nailed the focused with each single shot I took! Even when I used 80mm f/2.8 D in AF mode on 645 AFD III body, AF FAILED!!! The distance between me and the subject was around 3 meters! I should just mention that I used a crop mask under my Bill Maxwell hi-lux matte screen! I think one of the reason I am really comfortable to use MF either on film/digital is due to that screen!

I thought about Hy6 as well, however 6x4.5 film does not attract me at all! The main reason I love RZ is 6x7 film! Anyway, selling all my 645 stuffs to just shoot on RZ (film and digital) and getting a tech camera soon!
 

EH21

Member
I have shot with the RZ and the Hy6 and also very briefly the 645DF. I use the Hy6/AFi with the AFi-ii 12 back, but the cool thing is that this AFi-ii 12 back can be fit to the RZ with an adapter plate Leaf sells. Consequently I can report a few observations:

1) both RZ and Hy6 optics are up to the job unless you are quite picky - then you should go for technical lenses. It's controversial but I don't think the DF is any better and may be worse than both. There are some good DF lenses, but as a whole...
2)You may see some axial chromatic aberration with the older lenses designed for film when shot wide open - this is the purple and green fringing. It's not significant on the smaller resolution backs but noticeable at 80mp.
3) RZ + film is beautiful!
4) RZ is primitive compared to the others but fun to use and cheap!
5) Hy6 + Schneider (real schneider not assisted by schneider and made by Mamiya) is the best and has low distortion neutral look.
6) RZ lenses draw an older character.
7) RZ is a better camera than the DF (IMHO)
8) If I had to choose, I'd take the Hy6 of course, but for about $2000 you can have both since the RZ and adapter are so cheap.
9) Hy6 has more fast lenses than RZ 50/2.8, 80/2, 110/2, 180/2.8
10) RZ is the heaviest camera
11) RZ is the most bang for the buck for sure. I wouldn't hesitate!
 

pophoto

New member
SergeiR, the crazy talented Russian! Okay, I added the crazy part for fun, and I agree, I also enjoy his work very much, and can also appreciate his posing of subject much like that Russian painters like Repin! Again, that's just my opinion.

I am too very interested with the RZ and digital back, since I have also only ran film through my pro II, non-D version. I absolutely love it but it is quite a beast of a camera. I thought I'd mention it here since there maybe other readers, just doing that but are also interested with others experiences.
 
Top