werner1

<p>James, I am going to vote for you for President!! My only caveat will be M4/3. I just picked up a Panasonic GF3, and it actually fits in my coat pocket. We will have to see how the nex series pan out.</p>

<p>Max these are two very different animals. On a tripod for landscapes and portraits I would keep the RZ. For candids and everyday shots the AFD is FAR superior. I have owned them both. The AFD is late 80's technology in terms of auto-focus speed, but is still more than capable. In regards to image quality it all depends on the size of print you want to use and how you are scanning your negs. I decided to sell the AFD as I knew I could never afford/justify a digital back. I kept the RZ and went full frame digital instead of the AFD. If however you are not using the RZ, then potential IQ is meaningless. If the RZ does not suit your needs and you still want to use film the AFD is a GREAT camera. Some of my best prints came from that camera. It's faster and easier to use, and produces amazing 20x30's if that is big enough for you. </p>

<p>I use this software and find it a wonderful tool. HOWEVER, I am not a professional submitting images to magazines. The standard settings also change the physical aspects of a person to match whatever tech decided this was what most of us want to see. I always scale back the face sculpt section. You have to be REALLY careful about using software like this. You may actually insult people by taking away too much and insinuating that the imperfections you removed are somehow ugly or detracting from their natural looks. I use the software not to remove imperfections, but to soften them. It can make the difference between an image being used or thrown in the garbage. I use the software rarely, but there are times, for example in extreme sidelights when wrinkles may show to a degree that is just not evident in the everyday life or perception of that person. It is easy to file all of this under Vanity, but life is not quite that simple. Are you talking about a teenager whose birthmark screams out at them every time they look at the mirror? Is this vanity or peer pressure and insecurity with who and what they are as a person? Changing someone to the degree that Luis mentions is something I do not feel comfortable with either. Remember we are not talking magazines here which can be pure fantasy, I am referring to everyday life. Talk to any pro wedding photographer who worked in the days of film. The higher end ones touched up the negs to do the same thing.</p>

<p>I would get the RZ II, the prices are so low now. Mine is an RZ that the previous owner would have paid $800.00 to upgrade to a II. I love the half stops( I also had a regular RZ as a back up). Mine does not have the micro adjust, I think it would be handy. But I have heard this is a weak spot on the RZ II and is prone to breaking with a lot of use. You may want to confirm this is working properly. The RZ may not give you noticeably better shots as the KL lenses may be just as good. The RZ is just faster and easier to work with. Especially if you want to use an AE finder. The readings are excellent.</p>

<p>The Pro TL is a great camera, and as its name suggests, if you want to use flash it is TTL. I have taken some of my best shots with it. The lenses are abundant and cheap. I sold it only after moving to a Mamiya AFD as the auto focus was better for my aging eyes.</p>

<p>That is still Kevin's number. He is a certified Mamiya tech as well as Tamron. He does great work and I use him all the time.</p>

<p>I own both the 358 and the 558. There was a time when I thought I would sell both and get a 778. But if you you investigate further the calibration costs do not end with the simple purchase of the 778. The charts are quite expensive. Both of these metres are are great. I have used Minolta as well but the older designs(even though just as accurate) Are simply not as user friendly. The sekonics are pocket wizard compatible and best of all (for me) give percentages for flash lighting. I have never felt the need for the zoom, but if you think it will better fit your needs-go for it instead of the 778.</p>

<p>Collin, they are both listed as current on the Canadian site. I don't think they will stop producing since they are still announcing new full frame lenses. Just not as prolific as the other two. </p>

<p>Unfortunately Herb, you are trying to do two COMPLETELY different things. For street photography the Mamiya 7 would be great! Small, light, unobtrusive, and great resolution. For reproduction work I would NEVER use anything but an SLR. I would want to see EXACTLY where I am focusing. In this case a 645 would do both for you. It would still give you better reproductions than you could get with an APS-C sensor. The portraits taken with my AFD have way more information when it comes to subtle transitions in colour. Skin tones just look more real. The difference from 35mm film to 645 is far greater than the difference from 645 to 6x7. <br /> Personally, I would look into a Mamiya RB and a 110, 127, or 140 macro lense. Just use it for your artwork. They are real cheap right now and The 6x7 would give you stunning repros of your artwork.<br /> Remember, if you want great scans, find a pro lab that caters to a lot of wedding work. The scans you do at home just will not do your negs or your artwork justice.<br /> I don`t know what type of art you are talking about, but it seems to me if you spend a lot of time capturing detail or subtle transitions, it is a shame if you can`t show that in your pictures. <br /> I recommend the RB-RZ, because of the HUGE focusing screens, and the bellows focusing which allows you to get much closer to your subject. These are the cameras I am used to. But almost any medium format will give similar results.</p>

<p>Sorry about the double Post!</p>

<p>Herb, I own an AFD and a Fuji 645zi range-finder. It really depends what you want to use it for. If you travel a lot and want super compact then the range-finders are great. The 7 has probably the best lenses in medium format and will give stunning results. But, nothing is free-you cannot see what the lenses see, polarizers are a pain to use, etc. For me I got a better 'HIT' rate with the AFD than with the range finder. <br>

The irony here is I am going to sell my AFD to get a full frame SONY. I am hoping the full frame will be close enough to the afd in quality to substitute it and use all those Minolta lenses I own. I also have an RZ67 which I would never sell as I love the rythym of using it and the quality of 6x7. Soooo, to make things even tougher-are you using full format? If so the quality jump may not be as distinctive in 645 unless you do large blowups and have a Pro preprocessor nearby that does decent scans of your negs. The results of 6x7 are more noticeable, in my opinion (subjective). <br>

The AFD, on the other hand has the ability of digital backs. Used ones may be more affordable in the future. I have decided that I could not justify one, so I simply do not enter this into my equation. Hope I have confused you even more. -Join the Club-</p>

<p>I just took a look at some of the NEW prices at KEH. For what they are asking you are making the right decision buying new. To have the boxes, and being able to advertise that you bought them NEW with an aprox. counter use, means that you should get top dollar should you decide to sell in the future. P.S. just remember to cock/uncock the lens. If new they may be in the uncocked position. The pins on the back of the lense should be moved to the GREEN position.</p>

<p>The Rb, with KL lenses will give you the same quality at a lower cost. However, at current prices I would go for an RZ II, The half stops for shutter speeds and the micro focusing are reasons enough for me. In the end it comes down to budget. Either are great systems that can give you quality negs capable of HUGE enlargements. I recently borrowed a 22 meg ZD back for my Mamiya AFD and was really impressed with the quality (even if it is older technology)-still the softness and the transitions in the skin tones that I get with the RZ and film is still superior to my eye.</p>

<p>Thanks guys, I have just been so tempted with the current prices these days. Like Gregory I was thinking of buying a new one as the they are selling for ridiculously low prices. I have more than enough primes to do the job, I just thought with portraits it would save some shuffling back and forth.</p>

<p>Has anyone had experience withe the RZ 100-200 zoom. I thought it might be useful for portraits. I do not expect it to be as good as the primes, but for portraits I do not need the ultimate in sharpness. Thanks!</p>

<p>Shane, it would help if you gave an example of your shots. I do not own a ZD but I borrowed one for 4 days a few weeks back. I fired off a hundred or so shots under difficult conditions. i.e. kids paying around after a fresh snow fall. I used my AFDII and was surprised at how well the exposures turned out. Under these conditions there is no way the snow will be exposed properly as well as the subjects, but because of all the white there was a slight underexposure that gave me enough detail without blown-out highlights to give me some decent shots. The ZD back while a little dated, compared to todays MF backs still gave a better dynamic range than my 10 meg. DSLR by far. I do not think the digital back can meet the same dynamic range as pro film-depending on how its scanned-but most digital cameras seem to over expose slightly when compared to the readings one gets from an incident light metre, but this seems to allow the highest possible picture quality after PS. Give an example, there are people on this site with a lot more experience than I. </p>

<p>Manual, I may get some grief for this but the enlargement you get without enlarging in a program to add pixels will be around 13x20, printing at 300 dpi or 'dots per inch'. Many printers will print at 250dpi, the printing service I use will also print at 300(which is my norm for most things) or 400dpi at request. Your 24-105 seems to be happiest at around f11-14, at least my copy does. Using a tripod, good focus, lighting, haze, etc will also play a large role in the outcome. The a900 at fine will produce a roughly 4000x6000 pixel file size. you divide those numbers by the dpi used to give you a rough print size. I recently borrowed a Mamiya ZD back which is only 22 MP and produces a 4000x5300 file size. The Mamiya manual states that at 350dpi the optimal print size is 11.4x14.9. This does not take into account that the sensor size is twice as large as that in the a900, so the extra depth or tonality may allow you to go larger. In the end what ever is acceptable to your eye is what is the limit. While I agree with Richard and Howard, I suspect your question was geared more toward the sensor and quality of the lense. A prime lense will probably give you a clearer picture than the 24-105, but I have taken shots with the same lense at f14 that rival my primes. </p>

<p>James here is a link to Mamiya site that will answer some of your questions. <strong>http://tinyurl.com/yj7hbvl</strong></p>

<p>James, that is a great price for this camera. While your intended use is perfect for medium format, do yourself a favor and try some portraits as well. The tonality in medium format, especially in larger prints will be a real eye opener for you. Enjoy!</p>

<p>Bruce, I live in southern Ontario, Canada. I have never had this issue with my AFD. While I am usually out no more than a couple of hours with it. For landscapes which turn into longer excursions I use my RZ67. I do have an 'external battery case PE401' that is basically a small battery box with a wire going to the camera,so you can keep your batteries warm inside your pocket. I have never had the need to use it. I am thinking you may need a cleaning. If there is any dirt in the camera the cold my just be turning it into sludge-keeping the shutter or front curtain from moving.</p>

<p>Terry, I have both the 90 and the 110. The 90 is better for landscapes because of its wider perspective. The 110 is actually smaller, the 2.8 helps in low light and generally is better for handheld shooting because of its size and weight. Theoretically the 110 2.8 should be better when pixel peeping, but I cannot see it in 16x20 prints. The 90 is overshadowed by the 110 as it has become the standard lens for the RZ, My 90 and 180 have produced the highest percentage of keepers on my RZ. </p>

<p>Gregory, my 250 came with both caps, but no hood. However I noticed that most lenses from KEH do not come with a hood.</p>

<p>Bob, when I owned a PRO TL I purchased lenses from KEH and was always pleased. At the current prices I would stick with the 'N' lenses. The 645 and 6x7 format is a perfect marriage for me so this may sound a little odd, but-before you jump into the RZ ask yourself why! My RZ is my tripod format and my 645 is my hand held format. Ask yourself what you want to do with your pictures. At 8x10 there is no difference in 645 and 6x7. At 11x14 it depends on the picture. Any larger and the RZ rules supreme (assuming the technique is correct). Most of us do not make prints beyond 11x14, your 645 already gives you the advantage over most digital formats in this regard. It is not unusual for me to print at 30x40 on canvas. For this the RZ is a wonderful tool. If you do not intend to print beyond 11x14, the RZ may be a waste of money. If however you want to use strobes, the RZ with its leaf shutter lenses are wonderful insofar as the maximum shutter is 1/400. -Just playing the devils advocate, as I know how easy it is to get caught up in lust! </p>

<p>I just received a Bargain RZ 250mm 4.5W lense for $119.00 from KEH. I have been going over every square inch and for the life of me cannot figure out why this lense is 'bargain' grade. The glass is perfect, not even the slightest cleaning mark, and I cannot find any dust in the lense. There are a few small marks that have been touched up with a marker, but it took me a while to find them. This lense would be excellent to mint on the auction site. I settled on this grade as I have bought from KEH before and have been pleased with their grading. I figured I would only use this lense occasionally so bargain was good enough. Well, bargain is more than good enough. If KEH can sell for this, what did the previous owner sell it for? RZ stuff is so cheap lately-I just don't get it.<br>

A freind of mine has offered to lend me a Mamiya ZD back for my AFD for a few days and I am exited to try it out. Reading through the manual-even at a fine jpeg setting the ZD back produces images that Mamiya recommends produce a Print size of 386mm by 290mm. (15in.x11). Although at 300 DPI it is more like (17x13). Still, the RZ can go WAY beyond this with a scan produced from my PRO developers. I guess it is a great time to be an RZ user, and a horrible time to consider selling. I cannot help myself but add to my lense collection at these prices.<br>

Happily addicted and still counting at 8 lenses.</p>

<p>Phillip, I use Custom Colour Labs, <br>

http://www.customcolor.ca/index.cfm<br>

You could also try Silvanos,<br>

http://www.silvanoimaging.com/DigitalImagingServices.html<br>

and UAF<br>

<a href="http://www.uafphoto.com/ourservices.html">http://www.uafphoto.com/ourservices.html</a></p>