High resolution back and RZ67 glass

[MaxKißler]

Tareq,

A drum scanner is probably several times more expensive than the back I'm using. And my space here is very limited. Apart from that I don't like this intermediate step. It's either directly digital or stays analoque all the way.


Aryan, that's great to hear. What did you pay for your focusing screen if I may ask?


EH21, thanks that's what I wanted to hear. Some CAs won't be a deal breaker.


I like Sergeis work aswell, he has indeed his very own style. And I'm impressed by his decision to stay with a low resolution back. In a time when everyone is permanently after the latest and greatest, he upgraded his ZD Back to an Aptus 54s. Cool dude!

 

[MarkoRepse]

Would you please share the source of that loupe you speak of?

Here you go: Kaiser: Lupe 4x Plastik fr 6x6<br>Kaiser: Loupe 4x Plastic for 6x6 | Lupen und Diabetrachter / Loupes and slide viewers - DE
Its very cheap and distorts heavily, but does cover 36x48mm and is plenty bright and sharp in the center. Very light too!

As for lens comparisons, I think there are too many variables to be able to definitively state how an optic performs vs another. It could be done but would require massive controlled testing. Its also unfair to compare an 80mm lens with a 110mm. Which is why when I did my very brief and very flawed test I shot all three, the 80mm LS, RZ 65mm L-A and 110mm. I tested in sunny weather, backlit with a busy background. A worst-case lens test so to say. Unfortunately the sun wasn't cooperating, but despite that what I found interesting was the lens rendering between the three was very similar. The 80mm bokeh was somewhat worse stopped down in areas of specular highlights due to the 5 bladed pentagonal iris. It was also much more resistant to flare. I might redo this test sometime, but in short, aside from the bokeh as stated above, I was having a very hard time finding differences. The LS maybe had more microcontrast. All are world class optics each with their own *optimal* usage requirements. You could say the LS is better wide open and RZ better stopped down. "Better" here is very relative and subjective as all performed absolutely fantastically, "better" is mostly preference and nitpicking. I really wonder why the bad rep of the LS glass for being "sharp but thats it" on this forum. Provided you can control specular highlights, its really not much different from the RZ glass. I'm curious how the 110mm LS compares to the RZ equivalent. And the Hy6 in general, it has a great reputation! In any case, just shoot and don't worry

Maybe we can even do a fun test. On my website Marko Rep?e all the photos (except #25) were taken with the RZ, 80mm LS or the bokeh monster. Can you tell which is which?

EH21, thanks that's what I wanted to hear. Some CAs won't be a deal breaker.

The worst of my RZ lenses for this is actually the 110mm. But keep in mind the 80mm LS has them too! Stop down and they disappear.

 

[jotloob]

. . . . . .
I like Sergeis work aswell, he has indeed his very own style. And I'm impressed by his decision to stay with a low resolution back. In a time when everyone is permanently after the latest and greatest, he upgraded his ZD Back to an Aptus 54s. Cool dude!

Yes Sergeis work is great .
Now , looking at Sergei's and also Dan's work , I can only say , really great work and both of them work with "low resolution" backs .
Since quite some time , I am thinking of getting an APTUS II-5 . But I want a new one .
We live in an "over pixelled world" , don't we ? ? ?

 

[Professional]

Should i get a back for RZ while i have H4D?

 

[MaxKißler]

Marko, thanks for the link. Do you buy at Fotoimpex often? They've got a store in Berlin where I get all of my analoque stuff, films, developer, baritepaper etc. I've visited your website. You are right, it is hard to tell which is which and almost impossible with web sized images...


Jürgen I completely agree, overpixelled but nice to look at. I think the Aptus II 5 is an outstanding back. Though the price is not right if you buy new today in my humble opinion. There are a lot of young photographers who would take that back in a heartbeat (like me, all future customers). Anyway, I used to not believe people when they said that it produced a film like look but it really does. One reason for me to go for a low res back was the fact that it is pretty easy to handhold. Another one is that base ISO speed of 25 is a huge benefit if you're using it on a Hasselblad V body or RB67/RZ67.


Tareq, if you have money to burn I would definitely go for one.
The issue with scanning is simply the time it consumes compared to digital capture. And time is money as we all know.

 

[Professional]

Marko, thanks for the link. Do you buy at Fotoimpex often? They've got a store in Berlin where I get all of my analoque stuff, films, developer, baritepaper etc. I've visited your website. You are right, it is hard to tell which is which and almost impossible with web sized images...


Jürgen I completely agree, overpixelled but nice to look at. I think the Aptus II 5 is an outstanding back. Though the price is not right if you buy new today in my humble opinion. There are a lot of young photographers who would take that back in a heartbeat (like me, all future customers). Anyway, I used to not believe people when they said that it produced a film like look but it really does. One reason for me to go for a low res back was the fact that it is pretty easy to handhold. Another one is that base ISO speed of 25 is a huge benefit if you're using it on a Hasselblad V body or RB67/RZ67.


Tareq, if you have money to burn I would definitely go for one.
The issue with scanning is simply the time it consumes compared to digital capture. And time is money as we all know.

I mean i have a digital back already with is closed one, H4D, i meant should i go for another digital back if i have money? which one if so?

 

[Anders_HK]

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.

Max,

No worries, the RZ is quite a beast but really is lovely looking through the WLF in it. Lenses etc are rather low cost used and sharp. .

F.w.i.w. as advise, in future you may also wish to keep in mind the 56MP Aptus-II 10 assuming the near 3:2 proportions of sensor are ok to you. It is 56mm x 36mm sized. Due to its proportions its popularity and price used may be lower than a 60MP sensor back..., also since Leaf tend to be lower priced than P1. :toocool:

Best regards,
Anders

 

[MaxKißler]

I mean i have a digital back already with is closed one, H4D, i meant should i go for another digital back if i have money? which one if so?

If you want to hear my honest opinion, I'd say you look at an Aptus 22 or Aptus 75 (if you want to buy new and depending on your budget: Aptus II 5 or Aptus II 7). Maybe it makes sense to take it in Hasselblad V-mount. The V-mount adapter plate is usually cheaper than the HX701.

 

[Shelby Lewis]

I have an aptus 22 in Mamiya mount I'm about to put up for sale... 22mp is great for the RZ.

 

[Professional]

Good, i hope that DB will work great on both my RZ and 501CM Hassy.

 

[corposant]

I have an aptus 22 in Mamiya mount I'm about to put up for sale... 22mp is great for the RZ.

Don't suppose you'll be selling the adapter plate too...?

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Like I said, I couldn't find the previous test files from a few months back - but here are some crops from a quick test Friday evening. Probably not the most ideal subject matter, but on short notice....

This is fairly representative of what my earlier tests led me to conclude, which was that the RZ lens (in this case, the 110 f/2.8) is out resolved - but only slightly - at the extremes (wide open and stopped down to say, f16 or so) by the Schneider 80mm f/2.8 LS. And in the middle apertures, they're on roughly even ground. Even here, the test conditions aren't apples and apples, because the angle of light changed in comparing the 80mm and 110mm, as we made some slight adjustments to get the illumination level to be as equal as possible without changing exposure, ISO, etc. As a result, because of the subject matter, the angle of the light creates more apparent contrast in the F8 RZ image, for example, but if you focus on areas with similar light coverage, you can see the comparative lens performance illustrated.

These are processed at defaults in C1.

To me - this is only a statement on the RZ lenses, that they are indeed very high quality, and that they are capable of holding up well when used even with 60/80 megapixel sensors. When a very high quality optic has been produced, it is not always easy to outresolve it with newer lenses, and I don't think that is necessarily the point. If newer lenses achieve the same performance as outstanding older lenses, I think the newer optic is to be saluted - well done!

For example, the new Mamiya/Phase One 120mm macro lens is extremely sharp, but there is very little improvement over the older versions (in terms of sharpness). The SK 80mm f2.8 LS lens however, improves quite a bit - especially wide open - in comparison to the original Mamiya 80mm f/2.8 AF. And in most cases, the color pollution that occurs with newer lenses shot wide open is reduced, even if sharpness is not notably improved upon.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

Max, I paid around $430 for the Hi-Lux Brilliant Matte screen! I do believe it makes a difference! See this Bill Maxwell Hi-Lux Brilliant Matte Focusing Screen Review | Aryan Aqajani

 

[MaxKißler]

Steve, thanks a lot! That was very insightful and exactly what I was hoping for. The images you poste evoke the confidence to further invest in that system. Maybe it's just what my eyes want to see but it looks like the Sekor Z 110mm is slightly sharper than the SK 80mm...
However, even if the RZ lenses would be outresolved by the back, to me there is no alternative to the joy of using an RZ67. Too bad that shutter speeds don't go up to 1/800 of a second though.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve, thanks a lot! That was very insightful and exactly what I was hoping for. The images you poste evoke the confidence to further invest in that system. Maybe it's just what my eyes want to see but it looks like the Sekor Z 110mm is slightly sharper than the SK 80mm...
However, even if the RZ lenses would be outresolved by the back, to me there is no alternative to the joy of using an RZ67. Too bad that shutter speeds don't go up to 1/800 of a second though.

I wish it were a better comparison - it is not easy to evaluate with this subject matter, and the angle of light changed due to varying focal lengths and the light positioning, which, with this subject created significant contrast differences, and of course, that gives the impression of lens sharpness (or not). I think my real sense when viewing all the files shot that evening was - slight edge to the SK 80 @wide open, very close (even, but different) when stopped down, and again slight edge stopped down more (at f/16, for example).

But I posted this anyway, even though it's less than ideal for a conclusion - just to show that it is worth considering. Even when we perform a test and there is a clear winner (not really the case that often, it is difficult to produce conclusive tests on comparative equipment that is all very good), I don't always want the emphasis to be on the winner. The emphasis needs to be on what product is the most appropriate for what you are considering to use it for and if the test reveals that it indeed may be suitable or viable for that application. Think how many reject an older camera or older lens out of hand without really knowing. Sometimes they miss something.

Sometimes our findings may not make manufacturers happy when they don't conclusively show the newest or current to trounce the legacy product. But, like I said, I don't see the downside, to me it is more a case of Well done! if a new/current product matches an older excellent product, especially when it comes to optics. And anyway, if they match the resolution, they give you the bonus of being able to use it with a smaller, auto focus camera, and in fact - you can use both with the same digital back product. There doesn't always have to be a loser in these situations.


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

 

[wentbackward]

RZ67 Pro IID & IQ160 a wonderful combo. The 110 leaves me a bit wanting in terms of sharpness, but it has a look that suits its usage. The 50 with floating element is superb, no LCC needed and I picked up a 180 which is super sharp.

If youre a fan of something like an rz, the it's wonderful. I'm sure the hy6 is too. Same thing with a/f and more modern lenses.

The RZ is a wonderful, versatile kit, it's weakness being 50mm at the wide end.

 

[Professional]

RZ67 Pro IID & IQ160 a wonderful combo. The 110 leaves me a bit wanting in terms of sharpness, but it has a look that suits its usage. The 50 with floating element is superb, no LCC needed and I picked up a 180 which is super sharp.

If youre a fan of something like an rz, the it's wonderful. I'm sure the hy6 is too. Same thing with a/f and more modern lenses.

The RZ is a wonderful, versatile kit, it's weakness being 50mm at the wide end.

Out of my 6 MF film cameras, RZ coming as my favorite, until i can fix my Mamiya 7II my fav will be RZ, the roll out of it is something else, i prefer and like the handle of my 501CM more, but the neg/slide out of my hassy 6x6 is not on par compared to 6x7, so i will keep using RZ for a while, but the only 2 issues i have with RZ are:

1. Weight
2. Battery power, most of the time i hate to buy many batteries, also it happened with me few times that the battery is running out when i need to shoot outdoor, wish if there is a type of battery to use with RZ that is rechargeable.

 

[Aryan Aqajani]

A better battery solution is more than welcome but I doubt it!

Regarding the lenses, has anyone tried RZ 37mm f/4.5 lens with 36x48 sensor? Need to know how the distortion would be!

 

[dougpeterson]

A better battery solution is more than welcome but I doubt it!

Regarding the lenses, has anyone tried RZ 37mm f/4.5 lens with 36x48 sensor? Need to know how the distortion would be!

Quite bad; it's a fisheye and looks like it even when cropped into 36x48.

It's possible to un-fish it with decent glass. However, in general if good wide-angle options are critical to a large portion of your work then the RZ is not what I'd point you towards.

The 35mm Mamiya/Phase lens on the 645 platform would be one route (since you could use an M mount back on both the RZ Pro IID and 645 bodies). Or a tech camera like a Cambo Wide DS with a Schneider 24mm or 35mm (given your budget range). Those would be much better wide angle options than defishing the 37mm RZ lens.

If you're only needing that wide a lens on rare occasion than the 37 with post work is a viable path. As is stitching two frames with the 50mm if that workflow works for your needs/style.

 

[ondebanks]

Steve,

Nice to see your tests. I presume, it's a given that you adjusted the camera to subject distance in order to equalize the image scales between the 80mm and 110mm lenses?

Regarding lens sharpness performance, I am mostly interested in wide open, and 1 and 2 stops closed down. Beyond that, lenses pretty much all converge towards similar performance, unless you get a real dog. So when I want to test a lens, or compare lenses, I take shortish exposures of the starry sky. Point sources at infinity, scattered all over the image, are the best test of sharpness and aberrations (as well as infinity point accuracy). It's no test of bokeh though! Although it can be a great test of foreground bokeh, if you defocus deliberately.

I just wonder why more people don't do this. I know there's the "I take photos of people/landscapes, not stars" attitude, but that is completely missing the point. It's not (necessarily) about astrophotos as the end usage goal; it's about the starry sky as "Nature's free optics testing lab" :thumbup:

Ray