Pro II /Pro II D & the ZD back

[katehutcheson]

Please forgive me if this question has been answered; I looked and looked and

couldn't find a really clear answer.

 

Can the Mamiya digital back work on the Pro II body, or must it use the Pro IID?

 

My budget is very limited and I'm just getting into MF, so if the new ZD back

will work on the Pro II body, I'd love to go ahead and get the Pro II body &

save up for the back. However, if the digital back will only work with the Pro

II D body, then I need to know before I go shopping.

 

Thanks, all, for your help!

[jean-louis llech]

You have the answer and all informatons on <a href="http://www.mamiya.com/cameras.asp?id=1&id2=2127">this page </a> of the Mamiya website.<br>

Obviously, only the Pro IID has the contacts for communication between the camera and the digital back.

[dave_s]

Other digital backs will work with the regular Pro II, although I have no experience of this.

 

The big expense here, by an order of magnitude, is the digital back, and the cameras cost much less. You can get a good user Pro II body for several hundred dollars, which is less than 10% of the cost of the ZD back. A plausible solution might be to buy a user Pro II for film for the time being, and then upgrade to the Pro IID (or the 645 version) when you've saved up enough for the ZD back.

[dave_redmann]

Please know that "digital back" and "budget is very limited" simply cannot be used anywhere near each other. As others have pointed out, the digital back is going to cost a lot more than a Pro II, and (if bought new) a lot more than a Pro IID body.

 

That said, this plan strikes me as dubious. If you want to shoot mostly film, shoot film and forget about the digital back for now. Save your money. Buy an Epson V750 scanner if you absolutely must get your 6x7 film into the digital realm, and send special shots to a pro lab for drum scanning. If you want to shoot mostly digital, and are on a budget, get a good 35mm-style DSLR; and what's more, a 6x7 makes no sense, because all sensors are smaller than 645 (the biggest are 36.7 x 49mm, and some are appreciably smaller than that, versus film at typically 41.5 x 56mm for 645, and maybe 56 x 69.5mm for 6x7), so your 65mm wide-angle lens on an RB67 becomes a slightly-longer than normal lens on a digital back. If you want to shoot film now with a reasonably-price system but have a decent upgrade path to digital, maybe get a M645 1000s, and then later you can use the lenses on a M645AF-DII with a digital back.

[danny_liao]

Yes, it will work. However, you would need an adaptor which is yet to be released.

[akajohndoe]

Yet to be released ... ah yes ... remember the 43/4.5 for the RZ?

[kmcgrew]

I would second Dave Redmann's comments. Scanned film will be of higher digital resolution than a digital back today. As digital technology increases in resolution, you need only buy a new scanner.

 

Film has a long life left, just note how Kodak and Fuji continue to improve on their current emulsions and bring new emulsions out.

[katehutcheson]

Thanks for the input, everyone. Question for Dave Redmann, though: what did you mean by "a 6x7 makes no sense...". Sorry I just am confused what that comment was in response to. Do you mean a 6x7 makes no sense for a digital because of the decreased sensor size? Just wanted you to clarify, thanks.

[akajohndoe]

At this point there is no technological capability for a full frame sensor for 6x7; conversely, there is no digital capability comparable to film 6x7 or 4x5, both of which are still as portable as any digital camera.

[dave_redmann]

Uh-oh, it seems I have been unclear, and given a misimpression. Going in order:<P>

 

<I>Dave Redmann's comments. Scanned film will be of higher digital resolution than a digital back today.</I><P>

 

That's not what I said. What I advocated as an option for a person who (1) wants to use MF, (2) doesn't need digital's fast turn-around, and (3) for most pictures just wants prints and has a B&W darkroom (insofar as shooting B&W) or a good nearby pro lab (insofar as shooting color) was just to shoot film, is to do routine scans of the better shots at home on an inexpensive scanner like an Epson V750, and then have drum scans professionally made for the most critical uses. A scanner like the Epson V750 will not give you better resolution than a digital back; on the contrary, I would expect that any reasonably recent digital back of 22 MP+ (and probably 16MP) would do better than the Epson. Now to get resolution from a 6x7 that can challenge the best current digital backs, you need a much more expensive scanner (Nikon 9000 or drum scanner).<P>

 

<I>Question for Dave Redmann, though: what did you mean by "a 6x7 makes no sense..."</I><P>

 

Yes, as you guessed, I mean it makes do sense to use a 6x7 camera when the sensor is much smaller than the 6x7 frame, and in fact smaller than a 645 frame. If a digital back is probably far in the future, then 6x7 offers real advantages over 645, provided you usually use a tripod. On the other hand, if the plan is to get a digital back next year, then it makes a lot more sense to start with a 645 film system that offers the clearest upgrade path to digital (which would be Hasselblad H-series or maybe Mamiya M645 series, especially the AF versions).<P>

 

<I>there is no digital capability comparable to film 6x7 or 4x5</I><P>

 

Says who?! I mean, "comparable" is a pretty vague standard. But most people mean resolution (even if it is only one of many parameters that affect image quality), so let's talk resolution. While I would not ask anyone to take on faith that what is posted on Luminous Landscape is perfectly accurate and objective, you might find it interesting. The best current backs (I think 39 MP on a 36.7 x 49mm sensor?) are highly likely to beat even 6x7 film for color pictures. Remember, the 50% MTF point for Provia 100F is about 40 lp/mm, which means that 6x7 is limited to a real resolution of about 25 MP. A good Bayer sensor'r real resolution is about 65% of its pixel count, so the digital back's real resolution is also about 25 MP. And of course, getting the resolution out of the digital back is a lot easier and more foolproof. Now when you are talking <I>some</I> B&W films (e.g., T-Max 100), yes, film still has a real advantage.

[dr_merritt]

I too am revisting mf after about a twenty-five year period. I recently purchased a nice used RZ67 Pro II unit.According to Mamiya the ZD back adaptor for this camera is planned for release later this year ;-) I love the camera but have been thinking of trading for a Pro II D model which was designed to work with the ZD back from the ground up. Recently I have heard from local retailers that Mamiya has some serious issues with the firmware for the ZD back in the US models. Specifically with Adobe Digital Negative format and the Adobe Photoshop application. If this is the case then the unit is a bust out of the gate. Does anyone have any more information about this issue. I am not prepared to purchase a P45 back or anything in that price category. I am shooting transparencies with my RZ now and I am very close to purchasing a Coolscan 9000. Using this process would negatives be a better choice than transparencies? Thanks for everyone's input.

[fotografz]

1) "Other digital backs will work with the regular Pro II, although I have no experience of

this."

 

Yes, with the proper adapter. I'm currently using a Leaf Aptus 75 on a Pro-II. It requires a

sync cord from the leaf shutter lens sync port to the digital back. There is a second sync

port on the Aptus back to connect a radio slave like a Pocket Wizard.

 

2) " There is no digital capability comparable to film 6x7 or 4x5, both of which are still as

portable as any digital camera" ... answered with: "Says who?! I mean, "comparable" is a

pretty vague standard. But most people mean resolution (even if it is only one of many

parameters that affect image quality), so let's talk resolution."

 

Let's not beat the resolution horse any more. Both mediums far outstrip most people's

actual use of resolution in printed form given viewing distance and actual camera

steadiness as opposed to unreal world clinical lab rat tests and pissing contests on the

web. Instead, let's talk about the ability to handle spectral highlights and harsh backlit

hard edged subjects ... something first hand MF digital experience in the real world

teaches you really fast ... gimme that back loaded with film please. There are other good

reasons to use film over MF digital, but that one is more than good enough.

 

3) " ...been thinking of trading for a Pro II D model which was designed to work with the

ZD back from the ground up."

 

I'd double check that. Are you sure you don't also need an adapter plate for the Pro-IID? If

the ZD back fits the Mamiya 645 ADF-II without an adapter, then it can't fit the PRO-II

directly... or you'd be able to mount the 645 film backs on the Pro-IID ... which I assure

you cannot do. What the adapter plate for the Pro-IID may allow is use of the ZD back

without the "Flintstone technology" of using unreliable sync cords from the lens to the

back.

[terence_patrick]

Kate,

 

If you like the feel of the RZ, then by all means use it with film or with digital. Like Marc said, it is possible and fairly easy to use a digital back with adapters. If having wide angles in tight spaces are not a concern for you, then you'll be fine, I recently tested a Leaf back with my RZ + 65mm and found no issues with crop factor since I had a pretty big studio to shoot in and people are my main subjects.

 

You may want to consider one of the 645 systems if you are definitely going to head up the digital route soon and don't want to fuss with adapters or major crops. I would've gone that way myself, but the RZ is my favorite camera to use and I've developed a special bond with the Nikon 9000 and Portra 160vc.