qdb

I have a ZD, and I have posted a couple of sample pics from it in another thread, but to repeat

 

http://www.pbase.com/dougas_freer/image/65081388

http://www.pbase.com/dougas_freer/image/64654543/original

 

This is replacing a Kodak 14nx. I see two major difference between the Kodak full frame 35mm size sensor camera and the Mamiya. First is the frame shape. I simply find it more versatile to have a slightly less panoramic format shape. Second is the generally better edge performance and less overall CA or other image issues. Even if Canon do bring out a 22mp 1Ds III, I doubt it will match the performance of the ZD at low ISO or a P25 ot the like. I would add higher resolution as well, of course.

 

Quentin

Thanks for the replies. It seems from the links that all Mamiya 645 lenses can be used ("C" and "N" designation) in stop down mode for metering on a ZD.

 

Re the image, I used a little sharpening in PS, but not much

First the sample, taken recently with a new ZD

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/64654543/original

 

Next, the question:

 

Which of the various older 645 lenses work on the newer AFD mount (which the ZD

of course uses)? I see C and N designations, for example, and don't have a

clue. If there is a page somehwere with the info, can someone please point me

to it? I do already understand that 645 pro lenses work but you have to stop

down to meter.

 

Thanks

 

Q.

The Epson issue has been film alignment. Get it right (not easy with a flatbed) and a 4990, for example, can produce a sharp scan. The importance of the wet mount accessory for the newer 700 and 750 scanners is as much in film alignment (for large and medium format film in particualr) as in dust or scratch suppression. Forget ICE.

 

I used to own an Imacon and their default settings apply considerable background unsharp mask sharpening, even when you think you have USM turned off. I'd be inclined to buy an Epson 7500 and use wet mounting over an overpriced Imacon. You'll probably get better results. I'm considering a 750 to run alongside my drum scanner.

 

QB

I have done both for some time. I use a Kodak 14nx 14mp dslr and shoot large format. I recently thought I'd kicked the LF habit altogether, but isntead I have gone from 4x5 to 8x10.

 

They can compliment eachother. Most of my work is digital, and I scan my LF and print digitally, but still LF looks different, more contemplative. I like and use each for different purposes.

A Schneider Symmar S 240 F/5.6 is a good choice. Quite few around used, fast, sharp, some movement with 8x10, not too expensive. Be careful with electronic Compur shutter versions as they can be unreliable. Regular mechanical Compur 3 should be fine, as should Copal 3 versions.

 

Quentin

You should be able to find a Howtek D4000 for a similar price. The D4000 has the same performance as a D4500 but a slightly smaller drum - still capable of scanning a 8x10. The advantage of the Howteks (D4000 and 4500) is Aztek support and the fact there are a relatively large number out there. They also perform very well.

 

Anyone contemplating buying a drum scanner, or who already has one, should really join the premier specialist forum for high end scanning at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ScanHi-End/

 

Quentin

I use:

 

- Focalblade for sharpening when not re-sizing significantly; and

 

- PhotoZoom Pro for sharpening when resizing significantly (at which it excells)

 

Quentin

Patrick,

 

I could see nothing wrong with the D2x dynamic range from the images I viewed. I have also not read any review - including the just published one by Thom Hogan - that raises this as an issue. A far bigger issue is edge sharpness, and its here that the D2x approach seems to trump the Canon 1Ds II approach (or Kodak for that matter).

 

Personally I'm with you in preferring the idea of "full-frame", but the problem we confront is in the legacy film-based design of current 35mm size dslrs. We need a new lens mount and maybe other changes so we don't have the edgde vignetting and sharpness issues that all 35mm size dslrs suffer from. The D2x is really a band aid solution for ageing technology, but tis better than the alternatives.

Hi Carl,

 

I use a 14nx with various Nikkors.

 

Before I comment on them, let me say this (re earlier messages in this thread): much as I like a full-frame sensor for legacy lens reasons, the D2x is a fabulous camera, with resolution the equal of the Kodak or Canon 1Ds II. Went shooting with friends who own D2x's and this was my impression from the trip, backed up by reviews I have read. The APS sized sensor is simply not an issue (except perhaps in a positive sense, because edge sharpness is better) so far as resolution and image quality are concerned.

 

Back to the Kodak. I sold my 17-35mm F2.8 because it exhibits strong CA on the Kodak. I have replaced it with a Sigma 12-24mm, which has lower distortion and CA than the 17-35 Nikkor. It's a fraction less sharp, but in other respcts, a remarkable lens, when stopped down.

 

Others lenses I'd recommend include the Nikkor 80-400VR. I do not recommend the 70-200VR because of edge discoloration (the so called "Italian Flag" effect that affects some lens on the Kodaks).

 

The 85mm F1.4 works well as very sharp portrait lens, as do various Tamron and Sigma Macro lenses. The 50mm F1.4 is a nice lens on the Kodak. The 28-200G is a sharp, cheap, walk around lens that I use a lot and a better choice that the 24-120VR, whcih is soft.

 

Quentin

Vincent'w review is spot on. I have just posted a message on the photo-i forum that compares the Epson 4990 with a Howtek D4000 drum scanner.

 

Quentin

Having owned a Kodak 14n, now upgrded to the new sensor (14nx), I would find it hard to go back to a crop-factor sensor and lower resolution in the D2x. But then I mostly use my Kodak for landscape / architecture / portraits, not sports or widldife, so speed is not an issue.

 

The Kodak is a remarkably good camera if used within its operating envelope. Resolution is about the same as the Canon 1Ds II (it has no AA filter) judging from the samples I have seen. Try a shot using "longer" mode at 6 ISO for 60 secs and see aboslutely zero noise. Not suitable for everything, but a great innovation for architecture, for example. Try using a Sigma 12-24mm on full frame...

 

If only Nikon would bring out a D3 with ful frame. Now, that would be a camera worth buying.

"Have you looked at the image quality comparisons on dpreview.com?"

 

You're getting hung up on one camera. Its the system and its future that matters. I have handled an E1 and it is superbly built.

"Which part of the current DSLR bodies was not designed from scratch? Apart from the bayonet."

 

Pretty much the whole thing - body, shutter, bayonet, metering focusing etc etc. The only new bit it the digital module. We are stil using a legacy system designed for 35mm film, and its way out of date.

 

"There is absolutely no evidence that the E-1 is superior to the current D70 or 10D. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the Nikon and Canon cameras produce better image quality."

 

To the contrary, the E1 system uses lenses with higher resolving power, optimised for the new format, and also offers correction for lens aberrations. No more barrel and pincusion distorion, and the body is much lighter and more compact. The limiting factor at present is not the format or design (which is what we are debating), but the sensor used by Olympus. I don't own nor do I intend to own a four-thirds system in the forseable future, but the concept is admirable.

"This is not due to the body but lens design and the angle light fall onto the sensor at its edges"

 

Actually its due to both. Anyone can produce a lens that covers the full 35mm frame, but to achieve the objective of minimising chromatic aberrations, light falloff etc you are a lot better off if the system is designed from scratch.

"Am I correct in assumming a full-frame dSLR produces better images than a smaller frame (such as the D70)?"

 

No, not really.

 

Nikon clearly believe you can get better quality witout mimicking the frame size of 35mm film. This means that their D1x replacement will not be full-frame.

 

Nikon don't have a direct competitor to the Canon 1Ds at the moment, but that is not because they don't use full frame. Full frame can cause problems, because DSLR bodies were not designed with digital in mind. You can get around these problems, but maybe a better alternative in the medium term is to do what Olympus have done, and opt for a whole new system, the 4/3 system, which actually uses a smaller sensor that then D70 or Canon 10D, but which promises very high resolution alternatives down the line.

 

In other words, you need to look at the total package, and not get hung up on so-called "full-frame"

 

By the way, I use a Kodak 14nx which *is* full frame, but although the qualty and resolution can be mind-blowing, the firmware, and software has to work hard to overcome the limitations of the legacy body design (e.g. chromatic aberations at the frame edge). Of course, I would have been happy to buy Canon, but I don't need a new photocopier at the moment :-)

It all depends on how much you can afford to spend.

 

A 6mp digital SLR will broadly equaly 35mm film in prints up to around A3+. Indeed, Michaal Reichmann of the Luminous landscape undertook a test between a Canon D30 - a 3mp DSLR - and a high quality scan of 35mm Provia, and declared the D30 shot to be superior in A3 prints.

 

Spend a bit more for, say, a Kodak SLR/n, with a near 14mp sensor, or a Canon 1Ds, and you are more or less on a par with 645 medium format film. I use my Kodak 14nx (same senor as the SLR/n) to print at up to 24" X 36" and the prints look superb, and I know about detail as I also shoot 4x5 large format.

 

Spend really serious cash - around US$30k - and buy a Phase One P25 and you'll be up there with 6x7 or possibly 4x5 large format film.

 

And a word about dynmaic range. Digital blows transparency film in to the weeds.

Kodak SLR/n or SLR/c. Either will significanty out-resolve 35mm, and if used with the best lenses, can approach or equal 67 medium format. I am a large format shooter myself, but if I am honest, I often get better images from my Kodak. Just remember the Kodaks are not point-and-shoot cameras. they need a it of practice to get the best from them. Then you'll never look back.

If you have hot lights, a scan back will provide awesome results, but the setup lacks flexibilty.

 

No doubt about it, a Contax 645 plus medium format back will add in the versatility, and you could try and pick up a 16mp Kodak Proback inexpensively, now that they have been discontinued.

 

Another, cheaper, option would be a Kodak SLR/n, the improved 14mp dslr from Kodak, or if you prefer Canon glass, it's sibling, the SLR/c. I use a 14nx (the 14n with SLR/n upgraded sensor), and it can give great results, meeting your quality needs, and coming in well under budget.

 

Quentin

I prefer FocalBlade, a powerful and precise Photoshop Plug-in.

 

Quentin

The 14n is upgradeable to the new chip and analogue electronics used in the new SLR/n. Once upgraded, the difference between the 14nx, as it's called, and the SLR/n are limited to power management and a little red light on the rear card door.

 

So the pricing is in part to tempt people to buy the 14n and use it as is now, with a view to upgrading to the newer chip in a few months.

 

The re-chipped 14nx and the SLR/n have much lower noise and other image improvements.

 

Quentin

I have few B&W images from the 14n in this temporary gallery:

 

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~trubshaw

 

I prefer to convert to B&W in Photoshop using Convert to B&W PRo, a plug-in. Its like an advanced version of channel mixer that mimics B&W film stock. Generally the results are very good.

 

Quentin

I realise this is not very hepful, but all 14n shooters like myself will probably tell you the same - never, ever use jpeg. The raw workflow through photodesk is simple and quick, and much better quality.

 

What are the artifacts you are seeing? Can you post a sample?

 

Quentin

S1 takes great images. I did most of my LRPS panel with one. The equipment junkies will debunk last years camera simply because its not an S2, S3 or whatever else is flavour of the month. Don't be put off by them. There is always something "better" just about to come out. I still use my S1 alongside an S2 and Kodak 14n.

 

Quentin

It's an awesome camera, used within its limitations.

 

The main limitations are ISO 200 or higher, some lenses not optimised by current firmware, and rugged outdoor use where the camera may get wet. You also sometimes need to deal with colour aliasing, for which I use Quantum Mechanic Pro.

 

I use mine in studio and in the field and it performs exceptionally well. As already mentoned, colour is great, resolution at the 645 medium format level, or sometime subjectively even better than this. I've done 24 x 36 inch prints that look almost as good as 4 x 5 large format.

 

Quentin