Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

  1. #1
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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

  2. #2
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: • Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar • Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar • Authorized Reseller

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong / Asia
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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

  4. #4
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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.)

  7. #7
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    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.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,497
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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

  12. #12
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,538
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoRepse View Post
    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?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by torger View Post
    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.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  15. #15
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoRepse View Post
    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?

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.
    Tareq

  17. #17
    Member Aryan Aqajani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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!
    Aryan Aqajani - Photographer in Melbourne, Australia
    Website | Blog | Facebook | Flickr | Vimeo

  18. #18
    Senior Member EH21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    394
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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!
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    228
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    There are plenty of examples in the Medium Format Image thread - I particularly like SergeiR's work with his RZ.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    889
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.
    ___________________
    Po-Ming Chu
    POPHOTO

  21. #21
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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!

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    173
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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.

  23. #23
    Subscriber Member jotloob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    KEMPTEN / GERMANY
    Posts
    1,513
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    116

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    . . . . . .
    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 ? ? ?
    Regards . Jürgen .
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

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

  25. #25
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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?
    Tareq

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Hong Kong / Asia
    Posts
    524
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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.

    Best regards,
    Anders

  28. #28
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by Professional View Post
    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.

  29. #29
    Shelby Lewis
    Guest

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

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

  30. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

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

  31. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    228
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by Shelby Lewis View Post
    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...?

  32. #32
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: • Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar • Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar • Authorized Reseller

  33. #33
    Member Aryan Aqajani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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
    Aryan Aqajani - Photographer in Melbourne, Australia
    Website | Blog | Facebook | Flickr | Vimeo

  34. #34
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.

  35. #35
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxKißler View Post
    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
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: • Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar • Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar • Authorized Reseller

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    691
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,083
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    6

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by wentbackward View Post
    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.
    Tareq

  38. #38
    Member Aryan Aqajani's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    166
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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!
    Aryan Aqajani - Photographer in Melbourne, Australia
    Website | Blog | Facebook | Flickr | Vimeo

  39. #39
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,274
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    7

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by Aryan Aqajani View Post
    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.
    Doug Peterson , Digital Transitions | Email
    Dealer for: Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Eizo, Profoto
    Office: 877.367.8537. Cell: 740.707.2183

  40. #40
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    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"

    Ray

  41. #41
    Senior Member Steve Hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    420
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by ondebanks View Post
    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"

    Ray

    Correct on your presumption. I agree about lenses - generally - that you'll find the differences at wide open (and also, to a lesser degree, stopped down). But normally the difference in lens prices is largely attributable to the wide open performance. Most of the time - that's what you're paying for.

    My question about your tests are - you say "shortish" exposures of a starry sky. Can you define shortish? Objects at that distance would - to me - seem prone to introduce all manner of intrusive phenomena, shifting environmental matter and reflections, etc. I've never been a sky shooter, so completely at the mercy of your experience.


    Steve Hendrix
    Steve Hendrix, Sales Manager, www.captureintegration.com (e-mail Me)
    Digital Cam: • Phase One | Leaf | Leica | Sinar • Authorized Reseller
    TechCam: • Alpa | Cambo | Arca Swiss | Sinar • Authorized Reseller

  42. #42
    Senior Member ondebanks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    518
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    My question about your tests are - you say "shortish" exposures of a starry sky. Can you define shortish?
    A good rule of thumb to freeze the trailing of stars due to Earth's rotation is to shoot at about 600 or 800 seconds divided by the focal length of the lens.
    So, about 8-10 seconds for an 80mm lens, about 12-15 seconds for a 45mm or 50mm lens...

    It's not a hard limit though...there's a little hint of trailing at those times but not enough to affect the tests; while pointing your camera north (if you live in the northern hemisphere) buys you more time as the circles described by the stars are smaller, so trailing is slower.

    For longer lenses like 200-300mm, 600/F doesn't give a lot of time to capture much starlight. OTOH their greater diameters largely compensate for this. And with their narrower fields, you can be more selective of which stars you image i.e. you can point them at richer constellations to maximise the number of bright stars.

    Another tip is to re-aim the camera a couple of times to ensure that you get at least one bright star near different edges/corners of the field, where optical problems will be most apparent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Hendrix View Post
    Objects at that distance would - to me - seem prone to introduce all manner of intrusive phenomena, shifting environmental matter and reflections, etc. I've never been a sky shooter, so completely at the mercy of your experience.
    Steve Hendrix
    No need to worry about that. Up to really high focal lengths (telescopic, like 2000mm), and as long as you avoid hazy nights and low-altitude stars, a star will remain a clean point source regardless of atmospheric conditions like wind, light pollution or moonlight. But it's preferable to avoid light pollution or moonlight, to improve visibility of the outer "wings" of the stars' images.

    Ray

  43. #43
    Senior Member MaxKißler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    387
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: High resolution back and RZ67 glass

    Quote Originally Posted by MarkoRepse View Post
    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!
    Hey Marko,

    thanks for your advice on the loupe. I decided to kill my original waist level finder and install that loupe as a WLF dedicated to digital capture. With this thing, my focusing accuracy improved significiantly. I think this is exactly what the RZ67 ProIID is missing: A waist level finder that is magnifying the whole crop and is therefore actually usable in combination with a focusing screen like the SA705...



Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •