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!

RZ 110/2.8 vs Canon 85/1.2 II in studio. White BG.

BobDavid

New member
You may have had better success with less light bouncing around. Perhaps you used too many generators. I typically light a single dog around 700 watt seconds and still manage to expose at ISO 100, f/13 @ 1/200 sec. I use a big or medium round softbox for the front, and a normal reflector to hit the background behind the dog. The dog is about five feet away from that background. Here is a typical resuslt: http://topdogimaging.net/blog/dual-identity
 

mediumcool

Active member
Bellows hud would be nice, but it doesn't change anything. As I posted earlier canon 35mm, which is MUCH-MUCH wider performed same as canon 85mm.
This does not seem logical to me, using comparisons between two Canon lenses to make determinations on whether bellows would or would not improve the contrast of a Mamiya lens (on a different camera and with a different sensor).

Consider the vast amount of camera interior being flooded by light, including the default film aperture of 56 x 69.5mm (3892 sq. mm) vs the back’s much smaller 36 x 48mm sensor (1728 sq. mm). I have never used an RZ, but recall my RB as not having much in the way of flocking 20+ years ago; but film seems much more forgiving about reflections.

I have tried to get info about the construction of the 110mm without success, but have discovered that the 140 macro has 7 elements (I had one of these lenses and still consider it the best medium format lens I have used).

It would be interesting to test the 140mm under similar conditions. The angle of view using 3:4 crops matches the angle of the Canon 85 more closely too.
 
Last edited:

mediumcool

Active member
I really think your lighting ratios were off. The background is blowing out the subject.
That may well be true, Bob (and I happen to agree with you), but the point remains that the Canon came through with more contrast under the same conditions.

And I just noticed this:

Shots below are just cropped. RZ 110 was with ZD back iso 50/f5.6. Canon iso 100/f8
So cropped how much? As a print designer, I don’t care about a seamless background’s density except right around the subject itself (to minimise contouring); I assume the final layout would have used a white background, whether for online or print.

So perhaps the bright[er] background was intended to cut retouching time.
 

BobDavid

New member
Here's a quick and dirty retouch effort. I used the RZ lens example for this. I was a little too aggressive with the dog's tail. Some dogs will sit on their tail...
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Most MFD backs produce a bit flatter file out of the camera ... leaving it up to you to work it in post the way you want it ... unless you set the defaults differently in the software ... as demonstrated by the simple adjustments others have made. Set up a default for this kind of work to recall when you need it.

BTW, I shot with a RZ and Aptus 75s back in studio with strobes all the time ... in fact 100% of the time. Lots of white seemless and big lights. At the time I also used a Canon 1DsMKIII and L optics ... the RZ and Aptus blew away the Canon every time. I tried doing some high volume jewelry work so wanted to use the 35MM for a faster work flow ... and the Canon absolutely failed at capturing spectral highlights in high key settings.

Never used a ZD back, so I can't comment.

While the Canon shot is the better of the two compositionally, note that in the RZ shot the dog is leaning to camera left, revealing more of the background squarely into the lens.

Mamiya didn't make the lens flag accessory for nothing. Personally, I use a Lee bellows shade on the RZ ... the rubber ones are a joke in situations like this.

-Marc
 

itsskin

New member
That may well be true, Bob (and I happen to agree with you), but the point remains that the Canon came through with more contrast under the same conditions.

And I just noticed this:



So cropped how much? As a print designer, I don’t care about a seamless background’s density except right around the subject itself (to minimise contouring); I assume the final layout would have used a white background, whether for online or print.

So perhaps the bright[er] background was intended to cut retouching time.
This is the most reasonable post.
The general idea about all this is that Canon came out better then RZ. Period. This is the first time it happened to me in comparable conditions. Yes, you can pull out RZ in post, but you can start with Canon with much better file. And this is big advantage.

I cropped not more then 15% (top\bottom) of Canon file to make proportions the same with ZD.

I did not use any protection for bellows and not willing to - because can just take small 5d2 and shoot with great success, instead of running around covered with dark cloth.

Also, I didn't say anywhere I am getting rid of RZ. This is my favorite system, I just know its limit.

And in this case MF is not giving me any headroom over Canon. It's giving me headache only for trying to reach Canon "out-of-box" performance.

P.S. Plz, don't teach me how to shoot white BG also. BG was overexposed only for 0.5 stop metered from model position towards reflecting surface, and NOT at the surface plane. And if you shoot white BG, which came out grey... :D:D:D Lol, go back to school.
 
Last edited:

BobDavid

New member
In this photo, I think there is something flawed with the technique used for lighting the subject and the set. The RZ lens amplified the error due to the coating technology not being as advanced as Canon's. Look at this as an opportunity to rethink how you would shoot the same situation next time. I think you would have been able to get a clean and contrasty result with a pre WWII era lens had you used just two lights. One with a reflector (hard light) to wash the background and the other (main light) with a soft box a few feet higher than the dog, pointed down at a 45 degree angle, with the light stand just barely to the side of the camera. If the dog fur was too dark on the side away from the main light use a a big sheet of white foam core to reflect the main light back to the dark side or use a soft fill light dialed way down. To prevent spill from the fill light, use a gobo to keep glare from hitting the lens. Photographing dogs is different than photographing human skin. A dog's coat can have areas that are as absorbant as black velvet while other areas on the same dog are more reflective than a white tin roof at high noon.
 
Last edited:
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
I think the real question here is whether Ilya is willing to go through the required process to get a good file out of the RZ in a high key situation... when the canon makes it "easy". I'll agree that, in the studio, the Canon is capable of producing very nice files very easily... but given my experiences, I know the RZ is capable of better if one is willing to use the g3 or g2 bellows hood in tandem with flags in the BG lights, yada, yada.

But, yeah, it takes more effort to get those files. For me, it's worth it... maybe not for others.

That's how canon has made such great amounts of money... very nice results with little effort (and that definitely counts for something, especially in a higher volume situation).
 

mediumcool

Active member
This is the most reasonable post.
The general idea about all this is that Canon came out better then RZ. Period. This is the first time it happened to me in comparable conditions. Yes, you can pull out RZ in post, but you can start with Canon with much better file. And this is big advantage.

I cropped not more then 15% (top\bottom) of Canon file to make proportions the same with ZD.

I did not use any protection for bellows and not willing to - because can just take small 5d2 and shoot with great success, instead of running around covered with dark cloth.

Also, I didn't say anywhere I am getting rid of RZ. This is my favorite system, I just know its limit.

And in this case MF is not giving me any headroom over Canon. It's giving me headache only for trying to reach Canon "out-of-box" performance.

P.S. Plz, don't teach me how to shoot white BG also. BG was overexposed only for 0.5 stop metered from model position towards reflecting surface, and NOT at the surface plane. And if you shoot white BG, which came out grey... :D:D:D Lol, go back to school.
One small additional comment; because the Canon was shot at f8 there is more sharpness/detail in the dog’s back. I have to admit that the softness in the MF image would have driven me crazy! Not the best studio situation for focus bracketing. :)
 

BobDavid

New member
I should have copied the tail from the Canon version and pasted it into the RZ version. Oh well. Learn and live or vice versa.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
I think it's obvious that ILya knows how to expose an image and probably doesn't need others to explain composition and technique. His original comment only suggested the difference in the two "out of the box", and for us to judge, not critique.
 
S

Shelby Lewis

Guest
Ah... but "out of the box" is not the same for those two systems. Out of the box on an RZ in the studio for high-key demands a bellows hood (especially with normal and wider lenses), well flagged BG lights, et al due to the older coatings.

That's what most here seem to be saying. This has little to do with the ability to expose an image, it has to do with using the correct peripheral tools to get a camera to perform at it's highest level. That's not what happened here, IMO.

... and that's ok.

Illya was very quick to criticize in another thread about someone else not getting everything they can out of the RZ/Digital platform. I'm just doing the same here. No malice or meanness, just some simple observations.

That said... those canons do make it easy!
 

Thierry

New member
That's what I am thinking and trying to say since the begin: bellows hood is the answer here, nothing else, IMO.

Thierry

Ah... but "out of the box" is not the same for those two systems. Out of the box on an RZ in the studio for high-key demands a bellows hood (especially with normal and wider lenses), well flagged BG lights, et al due to the older coatings.

That's what most here seem to be saying. This has little to do with the ability to expose an image, it has to do with using the correct peripheral tools to get a camera to perform at it's highest level. That's not what happened here, IMO.

... and that's ok.

Illya was very quick to criticize in another thread about someone else not getting everything they can out of the RZ/Digital platform. I'm just doing the same here. No malice or meanness, just some simple observations.

That said... those canons do make it easy!
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Ah... but "out of the box" is not the same for those two systems. Out of the box on an RZ in the studio for high-key demands a bellows hood (especially with normal and wider lenses), well flagged BG lights, et al due to the older coatings.

That's what most here seem to be saying. This has little to do with the ability to expose an image, it has to do with using the correct peripheral tools to get a camera to perform at it's highest level. That's not what happened here, IMO.

... and that's ok.

Illya was very quick to criticize in another thread about someone else not getting everything they can out of the RZ/Digital platform. I'm just doing the same here. No malice or meanness, just some simple observations.

That said... those canons do make it easy!

Okay, good points...I just read those threads. I'm not familiar with those older coatings on RZ lenses, so it seems it might make a difference based on the two with no flagging or bellows shade. Are there newer lens more suited for digital capture?
 

jlm

Workshop Member
I noticed a few other RZ shots by the OP in the rz67 images thread that show a similar flaring effect, probably intended, due to the shot and light, but they do jump out. (in posts 9,11, even a bit in 24 (excellent image by the way))

there is another poster showing a similar white lit bg (jumping woman, post 5) that does not show the flaring.
 
Top