RZ digital - so confused

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK so somewhere I have a old RZ body, loved that camera, but I completely fail to see the point in having a 46mm wide sensor in a camera build for 6x7 film. that sensor would be "small" even in a 645 camera - and somehow those little things have become the "gold standard" in 645 cameras, but putting it in a 6x7 camera.?

 

So far my monies still on Leica for making the only camera actually made for the sensor size its using.

 

.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[adan]

Well, there is the PhaseOne P65+, where the longest dimension is 53.9mm (as wide as a 120 film image, so almost a "full-frame" 645 image). Tech specs - Phase One The "standard" may be smaller, just as it still is for APS-cropped "35mm" digitals, but state of the art is close to at least one version of 6-by-X.

 

P1 says the interface is for Mamiya 645 or Contax 645, but I'm sure a way could be found to fit it on the bigger Mamiya.

 

The Hassy CFV-II back sensor creeps up to 37mm x 49mm (they call it 1.1X crop, which is close - for 645, not 6x6 or 6x7).

 

I've just been scanning Hassy quote-6x6-unquote negs, and they are really 54mm x 54mm

[mwilliamsphotography]

The only disadvantage is lack of wide angle coverage with a larger camera like the RZ ... the rest of it is in your head due to conditioning from film sizes related to lens coverage. The advantage is use of the lens sweet spot

 

The RZ crop factor is something like 1.5X with a standard DB, so the 50mm is about a 75mm field of view. The 50 is actually better out to the corners when the crop factor is applied.

 

There is the Leaf Aptus 10 BTW ... a full 56 wide pano format.

 

But basically, the RZ is a camera and it takes pictures.

 

In the case of an RZ is takes great digital images when equipped with a back like the Aptus-II 7 ... which is essentially what the new Mamiya RZ33 is ... sans all the hard-wiring previously needed to use a Aptus 7.

 

If this RZ33 camera is successful to any degree, maybe Mamiya will resurrect the abandoned 43mm for the RZ (65mm field of view with a DB) ... but I'm not holding my breath.

 

As to the S2 ... that's great if you never want or need a larger sensor ... (and some may not). Are we sure the S lens circle isn't bigger than the sensor? If it were larger, then Leica can make a bit bigger sensor for the S3/4/5.

 

BTW, the P65 and H4D/60 are full frame 645 Digital backs (less than a 1.1X crop factor).

 

I use a H4D/40 which has a 1.3X crop factor ... and I see zero issues in the real world ... unless I wanted a 21mm field of view ... which I don't. 35mm is my widest FOV and that is more than enough.

 

-Marc

[Bo_Lorentzen]

:-) Marc,

 

Im sorry, you misunderstood me, first I made a smart-ass comment, and then a poorly formulated opinion.

 

I love the RZ and had the joy of using one for while, my opinion is, the RZ is by any measure a BIG camera, really big, and I would much rather have a much smaller camera with the same chip.. maybe a smaller digital body with the same lenses.

 

The RZ had some very cool lens movement features, and this should keep it a very interesting digital camera. I was just commenting on it being a big camera, but who knows, the future may bring even bigger chips to stuff in there.

 

 

Bo

[mwilliamsphotography]

:-) Marc,

 

Im sorry, you misunderstood me, first I made a smart-ass comment, and then a poorly formulated opinion.

 

I love the RZ and had the joy of using one for while, my opinion is, the RZ is by any measure a BIG camera, really big, and I would much rather have a much smaller camera with the same chip.. maybe a smaller digital body with the same lenses.

 

The RZ had some very cool lens movement features, and this should keep it a very interesting digital camera. I was just commenting on it being a big camera, but who knows, the future may bring even bigger chips to stuff in there.

 

 

Bo

 

Well, that brings up another advantage of using a modular DB system ... you get to have your cake and eat it too. An Aptus back on a 645 can be used on your good old RZ ... or a view camera ... or tech field camera ... or the next, latest greatest whatever MF camera.

 

I have a Hassey CF/39 Multishot that I use on a H2F 645, and on my RZ with all its cool lenses and accessories, and on my Rollie Xact-II using lenses no MFD system can match. If I wanted to use it on a Contax 645, or Mamiya 645, or big old Fuji, I'd just need an adapter plate.

 

While the H2F is a bit bigger than the S2, so is the CF/39 sensor. The proportional gain in size is about the right ratio.

 

Just different ways of looking at it ... some of which not all people want or need ... where some do.

[AlanG]

Well, that brings up another advantage of using a modular DB system ... you get to have your cake and eat it too. An Aptus back on a 645 can be used on your good old RZ ... or a view camera ... or tech field camera ... or the next, latest greatest whatever MF camera.

 

I have a Hassey CF/39 Multishot that I use on a H2F 645, and on my RZ with all its cool lenses and accessories, and on my Rollie Xact-II using lenses no MFD system can match. If I wanted to use it on a Contax 645, or Mamiya 645, or big old Fuji, I'd just need an adapter plate.

 

While the H2F is a bit bigger than the S2, so is the CF/39 sensor. The proportional gain in size is about the right ratio.

 

Just different ways of looking at it ... some of which not all people want or need ... where some do.

 

This just made me think of another advantage of the replaceable back concept. When you decide to upgrade, there may be a wide range of photographers who have camera systems that can accept your old back.

[lars_bergquist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, gentlemen. I may not have burned as much 110 film as one or two of you, but I have probably been using it longer -- since the late 1940's, in fact. And to be honest, most of those arguments for using interchangeable backs would -- if we would accept them as valid -- be valid also for the advantages of having false teeth.

 

The gnarly old man with a white beard and a nasty temper

[mwilliamsphotography]

Well, gentlemen. I may not have burned as much 110 film as one or two of you, but I have probably been using it longer -- since the late 1940's, in fact. And to be honest, most of those arguments for using interchangeable backs would -- if we would accept them as valid -- be valid also for the advantages of having false teeth.

 

The gnarly old man with a white beard and a nasty temper

 

Sorry, I don't get the false teeth analogy ... but it IS funny.

 

At the prices we have to shell out for this MFD gear and make pay back over a couple of years ... maximizing versatility has it's merits. Faster AF work with a 645 to studied studio captures with a view camera, using the same digital back, helps a lot.

 

Looking way back ... I don't think I ever burned any 110 film. Lots of 120 and 220. Interchangeable backs on the Hasselbald was helpful back then since 12 shots went fast while shooting weddings and commercial jobs. And going from one ISO to another, or from color to B&W with the same camera was pretty important ... even in the 1950s.

 

Maybe when I get my own false teeth I'll understand better ... LOL!

 

-Marc