Mamiya RZ with P25 good for landscape?

[pjtna]

I'm looking around for a camera to make good ~ 24" x 32" landscape prints and I have found a Mamiya RZ system with P25 back. It's quite a decent price.

I'm wondering though if a setup like this is may be too heavy, or maybe no longer competitive with modern DSLR's.

I do really like the look large formats give a photo though.

I suppose my question is, is there anything to gain from an older P25 back over a modern 24mp DSLR? Or is it better to spend more on a more recent model MFD back?

 

[torger]

Look at the "fat pixel digital backs" thread and see how you like the images. The color rendition is different, and there's no antialias-filter which gives some extra microcontrast but also issues with moire. If you think it is much better is a matter of taste. If color rendition is of interest I recommend to compare with the latest Sony full-frame DSLRs which is "currently best" in the DSLR world regarding color rendition at base ISO.

The Mamiya RZ system doesn't have many wide angle lenses which can be a limitation depending on your shooting style. As I see it the strong aspects of a Mamiya RZ is not had in landscape but in portraiture and other genres when you can make use of the excellent bokeh the lenses have and don't need wide angle lenses.

If I would choose between a 24mp DSLR and a P25 digital back + RZ for landscape, I'd choose the DSLR, because I just don't see the RZ show its strong sides in that genre. But if I could combine the P25 with a technical camera with movements I'd choose that - a different shooting experience (more fun!), you can develop a shooting style using movements. If you are prepared to carry some weight you can get one of the geared 4x5" view cameras (say a Sinar X) some (heavily) recessed boards, a few analog-but-still-good-in-digital lenses and a sliding back second hand for a low amount of money. It will be heavy, be a bit slow to unpack and set up and you need to be extremely careful to avoid accidental tilts/swings on the wides, but it can be done.

 

[wentbackward]

I'm looking around for a camera to make good ~ 24" x 32" landscape prints and I have found a Mamiya RZ system with P25 back. It's quite a decent price.

The RZ is a wonderful camera system, as torger points out it does not have wider that 50mm (unless you want the fisheye). You can easily print this big.

I'm wondering though if a setup like this is may be too heavy, or maybe no longer competitive with modern DSLR's.

It's quite heavy. It certainly competes with modern DSLRs. Take a look at the thread Torger pointed to.

I do really like the look large formats give a photo though.

These systems are medium format. If you really want a large format look then it's different again (we're talking 5x4 or 10x8), if you just mean large format prints, they will be nice.

I suppose my question is, is there anything to gain from an older P25 back over a modern 24mp DSLR? Or is it better to spend more on a more recent model MFD back?

Only you can decide this by looking at example prints and images. Personally I think an MFDB has better tones and colours than DSLRs. You gain access to MF lenses which render differently, the focus fallover happens earlier, but is more subtle and pleasing. You end up in a different world to the smaller formats. It's also slower and more contemplative.

 

[Shashin]

A p25+ against a modern 24MP 35mm? The 35mm will have better ISO, long exposure, and DR. The p25 will be sharper. The p25 does not break a sweat at 24x32.

 

[torger]

32x24" with a 22 megapixel back is 170 ppi. For fine art prints hanging on the wall (and has potential for nosing) I prefer to not go below 200 ppi, but 170 is not too bad so I'd say it is okay, but if you are a perfectionist you may need some hand edits to fix moiré issues.

It's a matter of taste, but to me pixel artifacts is a worse thing to have than a bit soft image. The P25 with good lenses and technique is so sharp that "jaggies" and moiré can more easily become visible at nosing distance for large enlargements. So if I am going to print at low PPIs I would actually prefer to have an AA-filter sensor if I could, as the softer look minimises the risk of visible pixel artifacts, i e they scale up better.

 

[Shashin]

Photo quality for a 30" print is about 100 DPI, all personal preferences aside. That is robust where the plane of focus would be acceptably sharp at half viewing distance. You won't see square pixels in a print and, if you are you, should learn to eliminate them--it is not hard.

 

[pjtna]

I had a look at that thread Torger. Thanks for that, I really love the look those backs give.

I might actually consider finding a Mamiya AFD to keep the weight down while still being relatively affordable.

 

[pjtna]

32x24" with a 22 megapixel back is 170 ppi. For fine art prints hanging on the wall (and has potential for nosing) I prefer to not go below 200 ppi, but 170 is not too bad so I'd say it is okay, but if you are a perfectionist you may need some hand edits to fix moiré issues.

It's a matter of taste, but to me pixel artifacts is a worse thing to have than a bit soft image. The P25 with good lenses and technique is so sharp that "jaggies" and moiré can more easily become visible at nosing distance for large enlargements. So if I am going to print at low PPIs I would actually prefer to have an AA-filter sensor if I could, as the softer look minimises the risk of visible pixel artifacts, i e they scale up better.

Are you saying that a 24mp DSLR with the AA filter is likely to resize better to 32" x 24" than the P25?

 

[GrahamWelland]

I'd definitely consider carrying the RZ for a bit first because it is a bit of a boat anchor even compared to something like an AFD, especially for landscape work.

I agree with the other comments about the back though. It'll give you a different look.

 

[torger]

Are you saying that a 24mp DSLR with the AA filter is likely to resize better to 32" x 24" than the P25?

No, not really. 170 ppi is not *that* low, but say if you wanted to print at say 80 ppi then moire, jaggies and aliasing when stepping up close would be more evident on the MF back. I don't think you should worry when printing at that size.

It's also very personal what aspects of image quality you appreciate. Some think it is more important with higher overall acutance than avoiding minor moire artifacts here and there.

 

[pjtna]

No, not really. 170 ppi is not *that* low, but say if you wanted to print at say 80 ppi then moire, jaggies and aliasing when stepping up close would be more evident on the MF back. I don't think you should worry when printing at that size.

It's also very personal what aspects of image quality you appreciate. Some think it is more important with higher overall acutance than avoiding minor moire artifacts here and there.

Agreed. Over time I've found the look the larger sensors gives to be my personal preference. It was something I could always see but it took a long time just to suss out what I was looking at.

 

[MaxKißler]

I don't see way people worry about moire. I almost never see any moire and even if I do, it's in the short period of time when a file is loading, before being interpreted/processed for the first time.

And if you know your back and that certein structures will create moire, you can always stop down past diffraction limit to get an equal effect an AA filter would have.

 

[Mammy645]

I don't see way people worry about moire. I almost never see any moire and even if I do, it's in the short period of time when a file is loading, before being interpreted/processed for the first time.

And if you know your back and that certein structures will create moire, you can always stop down past diffraction limit to get an equal effect an AA filter would have.

+1

I once shot a catalog with 460 photos of textile products, and only a handful had issues with moire, and of those only 2 needed some TLC in Photoshop after using C1. That's using a P25, supposedly the king of moire. I've also shot fashion editorials and advertizing for 7 years, moire has never been a problem.

 

[pyrojim]

+1

I once shot a catalog with 460 photos of textile products, and only a handful had issues with moire, and of those only 2 needed some TLC in Photoshop after using C1. That's using a P25, supposedly the king of moire. I've also shot fashion editorials and advertizing for 7 years, moire has never been a problem.

People scare too easily over nothing. Kinda funny kinda sad.

I LOVE all of the articles about the Moire peoblems the D800E is reported to have... They crack me up

 

[wentbackward]

...to me pixel artifacts is a worse thing to have than a bit soft image. The P25 with good lenses and technique is so sharp that "jaggies" and moiré can more easily become visible at nosing distance for large enlargements. So if I am going to print at low PPIs I would actually prefer to have an AA-filter sensor if I could, as the softer look minimises the risk of visible pixel artifacts, i e they scale up better.

This is not a plug (as most people here are not in HK and those that are know me already), I run a large format print lab here in HK, and spend most of my client time talking about upsizing, jaggies and sharpening artefacts. Most packages out there are very aggressive, because most users export to JPG and post on web, out of the box, so I presume software is aimed (out of the box) at this mass market.

When the Leica Monochrom came out there were conversations about jaggies, I printed one of Jono Slacks images, squeezing everything I could to get the finest 1m wide print (which is still at the lab and looks amazing). You can find the discussion here on getdpi. I've linked to a particular post, but the whole thread it interesting (I hope) as I posted the evolution of treating the files more and more gently.

 

[Chris Giles]

A p25 and 5D3 are both equal at base ISO, I faced them both off.

The IQ was identical but the 5D3 had less blooming in direct light and loads of other things.

The Leaf 22mp back however was nicer in the IQ department. Phase and Canon both tend to be quite contrasty.

 

[Matthew Cherry]

I just started using a DM33 (Leaf Aptus II) on the RZ ProIID and I'm absolutely loving it. But I don't shoot landscape. Skin tone rendition, however, is fantastic.