Hi everyone,

The announcement of the Mamiya ZD 645AFD II digital system for under $10K has me seriously considering the move to medium format digital. But rumors abound of an update to Canon's 1Ds Mark II later this year, possibly 22 megapixels same as the Mamiya ZD back. I know this is all theory at this point since neither camera is available yet, but I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on the possible advantages of the larger sensor of the Mamiya. Would the larger sensor size translate into more detail for large prints even thought the megapixel count would be the same?

Thanks!
Sean

Larger sensor will result in larger photosites for a given technology. Larger photosites are able to gather more light, which does result in less shadow noise, and therefore more dynamic range.

This being said:

- large sensor have also less DoF compared to smaller one for a given field of view (longer lenses need to be used). This is often a problem for landscape images shot in the traditional way,

- the general statement above is true when there is a lot of light, but things get less clear in low light. MF sensors typically have much worse high ISO behaviour compared to FF or APS sensors,

- technology is probably more important than physics today.
-> Technology can result in a smaller sensor having photosites larger than those of of a larger sensor for a given pixel count,
-> Technology might be responsible for smaller sensor having more DR or less high ISO noise than larger ones,

- the sharpness is not just affected by the amount of pixels, but also by the "sharpnes of each pixel". This is typically affetced by the presence of an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. Most MF sensors, like the ZD, do not have AA filters, and their pixels are typically really sharp. This can on the other hand introduce some aberations.

The bottom line is that it is totally impossible to predict anything in the 1ds3/D3x/ZD image quality debate until actual cameras are available for testing.. In terms of ease of use, the Canon and Nikon will be miles ahead, no doubt. That alone might help you creating more succesful images.

Either way, one thing is sure though, the ZD will remain a suitable option for high quality A2 prints, but it is a tool that is not as easy to use as the latest DSLRs.

Regards,
Bernard

While the statements seem generally reasonable, the ones about AA filters are not in accord with the theory of digital imaging. By the very nature of a pixelated sensor, there is a limit to the resolution that can be obtained with a given digital sampling. The idea that these limits can be avoided by omitting an AA filter violate what I call the "no free lunch theorem." Pixels don't have sharpness. Removing the AA filter will invariably lead to distortions and artifacts in the image, sometimes called Moire effects or aliasing. The problem occurs because details beyond the capability of the digital sampling are included in the image and these are put in the wrong place. This is true for landscapes,as well as for the pictures of textiles often used to illustrate the point. In landscapes aliasing may be seen as a somewhat gritty apperance in detailed regions of the image. It is fortunate that aliasing will often be minimal in landscape imaging. But my point is that omitting the AA filter has a cost. The very small gain in resolution has costs that are real and unavoidable. The way around this problem is to have a sensor with sampling so high that it exceeds the capability of the lens to render detail. Then the camera will be limited by its optics rather than its digits. With large sensors and very high sampling, I beleive it is possible to oversample the image, omit the AA filter, and posthoc to resample the resulting image to reduce the noise resulting from the high sampling.

That's not quite true, Bernard. We already have a fair idea of the what to expect from a 22mp 1Ds3 since we already have a 22mp full frame 35mm in the form of a cropped 20D & 30D.

Since the 20D & 30D are now slightly old technology, we could expect a future 1Ds3 to provide noticeably better quality (than the 30D) in the centre of the frame along the lines of the 1D3 and 400D, using reduced spacing between microlenses etc and probably offering an ISO 6400 option and reduced shadow noise.

Anyone who wants to get a handle on this can easily do so by hiring, buying or borrowing a ZD and 20D with each camera's own 50mm lenses, or any 2 lenses of equal focal length and similar quality.

Shoot the same scene with both cameras. Crop the ZD image to to the same field of view as the full frame 20D shot and compare resolution and noise.

My guess is, the 20D shot would be noticeably better. The drawback is, this procedure will only give you an idea of the performance of a 22mp 1Ds3 in the central area of the frame. Since the ZD is a cropped format, one might expect at least equal performance (with the 1Ds3) towards the edges of the frame, and perhaps even better performance at the edges and corners, depending on the lens.

This would be an interesting comparison, but I doubt we'll see it before the 1Ds3 is available. Those who have invested heavily in a ZD and lenses will have no incentive to find out how their expensive system would compare, and those who use a 20D or 30D have probably no intention of upgrading to a ZD.

I have done a small review of the ZD vs the 5D on my blog.
www.doorhof.nl/blog under news.

I wouldn't expect the 12.8mp 5D to be a match for the 22mp ZD, at least not below ISO 400, but we're talking here about a future 22mp 1Ds3 which will certainly have 14 bit processing as the ZD has.

By the way, your impressions about the greater sense of 3-dimendionality of the ZD are not convincingly demonstrated with the sample photos you've chosen which have different degrees of enlargement, and in the case of the forest shots, a different perspective.

When comparing images, the differences are always clearer if you get the size and FoV the same, including as far as possible the color hues and light and shade.

Outside of DoF considerations, any sense of greater 3-dimensionality that one image might have in comparison with another will be a subtle effect dependent upon contrast, tonality, light and shade etc.

Since the ZD sensor is double the area of the 5D sensor you need to stop down close to a stop or so with any lens of equivalent FL, for equal DoF.

[attachmentid=2602]

To all,

This is an interesting thread and similar to what I posted the other day in this forum. Thus I take liberty to add some questions here.

As pointed out by Michael under my post; http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17299, the http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml compares MF backs and Canon current FF DSLRs. Although the Mamiya ZD was not part of the testing, together with the upcoming Canon 1Ds Mark III the gap between FF36x24 and MF sensors may perhaps narrow with these cameras. Perhaps considering the 1D Mk III as a crop of future 1Ds Mk III can indicate. It is valuable to hear from people who have much longer experience in image quality and cameras.

Here are some specific issues;

-> PIXELS. ZD and 1Ds Mark III will be same. Assumably at drum scanned MF levels.

-> DYNAMIC RANGE. Can that be matched in the new 36x24 to ZD’s 48x36 sensor (factor of 2 in area)?

-> COLORS. D200 I am not happy with the colors from my D200 camera RAW (although SilkyPix gets me far). In 135 film I shot Fuji slides (Velvia 50 etc) so perhaps I got spoiled arriving straight to brilliant and pleasing colors. Simply put, can we expect better/more consistent colors from the Mamiya ZD, or the upcoming FF DSLRs. And, colors that will get us to results with only minor adjustment compared to something like the Nikon D200?

-> NOISE. The 1Ds Mark III will win at high ISO, but at lower?

-> MF VERSUS 35. I just shot the fifth roll of film in my new Mamiya 7II and I am very delighted by the way to operate this MF rangefinder. So, in terms of ease of use, it depends on shooting preference (ok, for sports DSLR;s are far better). I like the way the Mamiya makes me think more in how to control the exposure and image (zone system, DOF, etc). I shoot landscape, travels and some people.

-> ARTIST’S TOOL. The way a camera feels in hands is important. I have seen the Mamiya ZD DSLR in person but not held it. Similarly have I seen the 1Ds/D Mark II series but not held it. Studying features of both cameras on internet, the layout of the ZD appear more logic and comfortable. I do like the simplicity the ZD seem to have, yet the display is too tiny. The 1D Mark III enables WA zoom, but the ZD has a mirro up button and a much more convenient remote seems like.

-> LIFE OF CAMERA. My first slr was a Canon AV-1 that I had during 20 years. Advancing I am now at a Mamiya 7II and Nikon D200. However, in digital I want to get a high image quality DSLR to last me very long (thus looking at this level). I am not a gear nut and would like to find what will last me for many years to come as a worthwhile investment in producing high quality images of my captures. Also to enable me large framed detailed prints.

-> IMAGE QUALITY. This is what matters most. Any advise?

Regards
Anders

Are we talking about the same Canon that hides the mirror lock up in custom functions - my pet peeve? The same Canon that has no customizable presets? The same Canon that has a dedicated, non-programmable direct print button? The same Canon that practically forces me to take my eye off the viewfinder to change ISOs, doesn't have parametric ISO or exposure settings (ie. if exposure is longer/shorter than X, change ISO or f-stop automatically to compensate based on rules _I_ get to set beforehand), and is a total nightmare to try to work with fast in changing light.

I've no idea how things are with Nikon or Mamiya, but Canon is hardly the gold standard in UI or ease-of-use, and it doesn't take much to make their UI better. I was shocked to find out how clunky the UI on my Canon (30D) was when I got it. Menus and 2 LCD screens along with the viewfinder should make things easier, not harder, than their film version.

And for someone else in this thread, I'm one of those 30D owners who's considering the Mamiya.

Frank,

I took liberty of referencing your review at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat...thread=23543674.

There are many new 1D Mark III owners in that forum. It will be interesting to see what that post bring in comparison.

Your review is very excellent. The differences are very impressive to the ZD.

Regards
Anders

Just a general comment here...

No one has yet mentioned the huge (in my opinion) difference between 8 bit colour (likely to be still the case on the Canon), and the 12 or 16 bit colour on MFDB's.

The differences involve astronomical numbers... It's not surprising that many feel that MFDB's give a much better sense of depth due to better tonal gradation, itself a product of the number of colours available.

Comments Please.
Jon

Canon RAW files are 12 bit color (14 bit for 1D Mk III), unless I am missing something :-)

--John

Ooops! That'd be my mistake then. Sorry. Basic misunderstanding. I'm asking myself the wrong questions here, in my quest to find the right medium format system for me!

I'll be more explicit: Canon sensors 5D/1DS etc are (at least) 12bit colour depth? Is this correct. The RAW file is supposed to be losslessly compressed image data, and therefore are the same colour depth as the sensors. Is this correct.

I really should take this to the Newbie's forum, but somehow it seems more appropriate here!

Thanks

It really would be hard to come up with a definitive answer to your statement right now seeing as Canon keeps raising the bar with each 1 series iteration. I believe the only real differences will be in look, i.e. MF looks different than 35mm. With the 1DIII being 14 bits it pretty much evens out the playing field. It's possible that the ZD may have better DR but by how much?

It's obvious that the Canon lenses are being strained (for the most part) and that more lenses will have to be created in order to catch up to the resolution of the sensor. So with that said, the ZD should have a crisper image across the picture--taking full advantage of it's sensor. Lets not forget that the ZD won't suffer the AA softness of the Canon.

The other factor depends on how you shoot. The Mamiya will be infinitely slower than the DSLR. A pro or con, depends. But obviously, it cuts down on the versatility of the camera. The ZD sync will also be a hinderance. Other than that, it would be a simple camera to operate and won't take nearly as long to get acclimated as the Canon with its numerous menus and features (though they look to be overhauled looking at the 1DIII).

Hope this provides some more prospective.

Darnell,

The 1D Mark III can be compared to the ZD on basis that it can be viewed as an expected crop of the coming 1Ds Mark III. Researching photos made from both cameras on the internet I see a large difference with benefit to the ZD. Photos from the 1D Mark III look flat and lifeless in comparison by my eye (even the sample photos by Canon).

Personally I shoot Nikon and anticipated the Canon 1Ds Mark III to have upper hand over the coming D3x (22MP 1.0x Canon sensor, versus 18.6MP 1.1x Sony sensor, per rumours). Now my eyes are on the Mamiya ZD slr camera... simply I think Canon or Nikon will not reach the quality images it produces in their coming upper pro cameras.

As an advanced amateur why do I want such camera? I look for high image quality for large prints for a future house, and from artistic point of view. As an expat I travel many places, landscape, nature scenes and people living traditional lives. MF will give me more control over DOF, and like you say the ZD seem like a simpler camera to operate than the Canon, thus keeping my mind more on photography. I also think the ZD can last many years, thereby helping me avoid the upgrade race... my first slr was a Canon AV-1 that I had during 20 years.

Yet like you say... everyones pros and cons are different... above is sharing mine. Any comments more than welcome.

Regards
Anders

Bernard already mentioned the differences in DOF. In addition medium format will have a more compressed view. To have the same FOV at equal distances, the medium format camera will use a 80mm lens and the FF 35mm SLR will use a 50mm lens. 80mm vs 50mm will have a different feel, and the longer lenses are part of the medium format "feel" coupled with expanded FOV (compared to same focal length on a 35mm SLR body). If the thinner DOF and added compression don't suit your tastes, then a Canon or Nikon dSLR makes much better sense financially.

Most medium format lenses are F2.8 to F4.5, so if you shoot lots of low light settings, then 35mm dSLR with good ISO performance and faster lenses (like F1.4 or F1.2) will have a big advantage in file quality.

You can mimic the feel of medium format by stitching images. If a 1Ds2 was turned to portrait orientation and two full 85mm shots were taken, combined that would be a 36mm x 48mm "negative" - the same as the "full-frame" digital medium format backs. With a 5D or 1Ds2 you'd probably do this with 3 images for some overlap during the stitching process. If the subjects are static, then with some work a 35mm SLR can emulate the medium format look.

In the coming months I'm sure we'll see some 1D3 vs 16-bit medium format comparisons and then we'll know more about how the DigicIII graduations compare with Phase One, etc.

Don't forget to post your comparisons. There could be some problem in selecting an equivalent focal length to full frame 35mm because of the differences in aspect ratios, so try various option ranging between 1.33 and 1.5x for the ZD. The 30D represents a cropped 22mp 1Ds3, so for comparison you should crop the ZD image (with say 70mm lens) to the same FoV as the 30D with 50mm lens.

I think I've got that right??

First just want to thank everyone who has contributed to this topic. Lots to think about.
I started this topic because I am one of those 20D owners looking to add a camera for my landscape photography. 35mm will always have a place in my bag, especially for wildlife work. I can achieve very nice detail and sharp pictures with the 70-200, 300 f2.8 and 400 f5.6 (BTW a great and highly underrated lens).
But as for wide angle work, I've been in need (well want really) of a higher quality for producing large landscape prints. The 20d can produce quite large quality prints shot with telephoto lenses, but the real problem is the lack of detail and definition when shooting wide angle. That's why the ZD back and possibly the future 1DsIII seem so appealing to me. Although the 24-70 f2.8 and 24-105 f4 are very sharp, they do not seem able to resolve with much detail objects that are farther away in a landscape shot. (And no focus or DOF are not the problem.) I'm sure part due to the smaller sensor and megapixel of the 20d, but I have concerns that a new 1DsIII might outperform their ability.

For my uses, a slower MF system and using smaller apertures is no concern. I am simply concerned about the best image quality for mid to wide angle landscapes. Since at this point, photography does not provide any income for me, I simply cannot justify the high cost of other great options such as PhaseOne backs.

As for stitching photos, been there done that. Too many issues with landscapes to make this a worth while technique. Even using pano equipment to compensate for parallax, too many moving trees, leaves, etc... to make anything worthy of a large print.

I guess I'll have to wait and see what Canon releases next and see how it compares.

Thanks again everyone.