+1 These are really good. They have excellent anti-glare properties.
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Mamiya Leaf introduces the new Leaf CREDO
- Thread starter yaya
- Start date
+1 These are really good. They have excellent anti-glare properties.
How is the refresh rate of the live view?
Christopher
Active member
I still find Live view VERY misleading. Sorry, but what it is isn't really live view. It is slow, slow, slow and it kinda is an insult to call it that.
Well, marketing always needs catching words, and live view is perfect for it.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Do you have some alternatives Christopher? While I've always described it realistically, I don't really know what phrase or words Leaf or Phase One would use to convey the actual feature. Sort-of-sensor-view-in-almost-real-time-in-the-right-light....Plus.
I think that would be too many words.
Steve Hendrix
Don Libby
Well-known member
I'm no engineer, never played one on tv and am just not that smart. However the way I look at "Live View" is like this...
Live View works better on a 35mm sensor because it's small. Place Live View on a sub 35mm sensor and you get better, quicker results. Place it on a larger sensor like medium format and get less results. Start adding pixels and you begin having more of a time lag in refreshing what the sensor is seeing.
That's the general physical limitations as I see it. Can it get better? I hope so, however I've got a feeling that the fix to "Live View" in medium format will not come from a physical fix - more than likely some software genus. Will it ever be as good as 35mm?
Then again some folks will never be satisfied no matter
And that's my 2¢
Don
Live View works better on a 35mm sensor because it's small. Place Live View on a sub 35mm sensor and you get better, quicker results. Place it on a larger sensor like medium format and get less results. Start adding pixels and you begin having more of a time lag in refreshing what the sensor is seeing.
That's the general physical limitations as I see it. Can it get better? I hope so, however I've got a feeling that the fix to "Live View" in medium format will not come from a physical fix - more than likely some software genus. Will it ever be as good as 35mm?
Then again some folks will never be satisfied no matter
And that's my 2¢
Don
yaya
Active member
The "trouble" is that WE introduced this feature to the stills camera world, back in 1996, and at the time we could pick any name we wanted...so we picked Live Video...
Then somewhere around 2002-2003, following some feedback from users who told us that it's not really video because we can't record it, we changed it to Live View
Everyone else just followed, including the 35mm guys...
Misleading or leading?
Then somewhere around 2002-2003, following some feedback from users who told us that it's not really video because we can't record it, we changed it to Live View
Everyone else just followed, including the 35mm guys...
Misleading or leading?
DeckardTrinity
New member
I'm not very familiar with the type of processor / chips that power the Leaf (or any other back for that matter), but am more familiar with Canon's DIGIC lineup of processors. My assumption is that the 35mm DSLRs have fast enough chips to be able to handle the bandwidth of reading and refreshing the sensor 30 times a second, while the MF backs do not. The MF backs are reading from a sensor that is typically much larger in pixel count, as well as in color channel fidelity (16 bit vs 14). I know my "lowly" Afi-7 has trouble providing even 1 fps when live view is activated on a tethered machine, but it's still a big improvement over the display built into the back when trying to dial in focus. I imagine the Credo backs will cause some folks to reevaluate the need for tethering at all with the new display.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Comparing the processors of different systems directly to each other is pretty difficult since they are built specifically for that platforms needs.
However, it is no exaggeration to say the processing power in a Credo is ENORMOUS and one of the largest improvements from the Aptus II series which could feel underpowered (CPU wise) at times (e.g. long time to view 100% focus checks). The main processor is a custom-silicon (built to spec) four core processor, and there are 3 or 4 (forgive me for not remember off the top of my head) auxiliary processors.
The speed of live view simply comes down to CMOS vs. CCD. Right now CCD sensors still produce better final net image quality, but they suck at doing live view. CMOS are great at live-view and capturing video but are not quite a match for CCD in final image quality. In the future that may change and if a medium format CMOS sensor can be made that match CCD for final image quality then I'd put my money on Team Phase One (Phase/Leaf/Mamiya/Schneider) making use of it first and best.
Chris Giles
New member
You'd think this would of been something they'd do. I regularly see 22mp backs going (used) for $3500-$5000 (depending on the back).
Some of us are smart enough to know we don't need 40mp backs.
I guess that's what the used markets for, oh wait......
I only wish for leaf / Phase to stay in business. Niche markets are nice, but can become erased or assimilated. Wait what Canon and Sony will bring next to the table. After Nikon coming up with the D800 you see how silent it has all become here.
The design of this new back looks really nice and clean, but it would be much nicer if a larger user base could make use of it.
3500-5000 usd for a used e*** item with all the risks and a maximum clean ISO100 is not a good deal in 2012, not even remotely.
....... and I do not need 40mp either, but think 22mp should offer some flexbility and affordibility, again in 2012!
Chris Giles
New member
I've been feeling the same way, I love my Hassy, truly love it and can spot the differences between the backs.
I wasn't going to mention the D800 but seeing as most of us MF users stick around the low ISO, which is where the D800 excels, you have to wonder if Nikon didn't do this totally on purpose. Yes indeed, smaller sensor, different look, but releasing $25k backs seems a bit backwards in going forwards unless you have the cash of course and I'm sure Leaf/Phase/Hasselblad aren't idiots so the market must be there for them.
If it was Canon I would of jumped on this as it's a reasonably small outlay but Nikon, new glass (which isn't all that great), etc is what's stopping me.
I wasn't going to mention the D800 but seeing as most of us MF users stick around the low ISO, which is where the D800 excels, you have to wonder if Nikon didn't do this totally on purpose. Yes indeed, smaller sensor, different look, but releasing $25k backs seems a bit backwards in going forwards unless you have the cash of course and I'm sure Leaf/Phase/Hasselblad aren't idiots so the market must be there for them.
If it was Canon I would of jumped on this as it's a reasonably small outlay but Nikon, new glass (which isn't all that great), etc is what's stopping me.
yaya
Active member
We've just created a Credo section on our User Forum. More people will be testing/ demo'ing the backs over the next weeks so expect some new discussions over there.
Just finished a classic car studio shoot in London with the Credo 80. We did have a laptop but the photographer's commented that with the new screen and Live View the laptop can stay in the bag. (he shoots on a Nikon D4 and an Aptus-II)
Just finished a classic car studio shoot in London with the Credo 80. We did have a laptop but the photographer's commented that with the new screen and Live View the laptop can stay in the bag. (he shoots on a Nikon D4 and an Aptus-II)
I am also wondering why Phase finances the development, production, marketing, product launch and service of two series of 40/60/80 MPixel digital backs which actually are 95 percent the same (same sensors, same screen, same IQ, nearly same features) instead of releasing one single series with the features of Leaf and Phase, adding entry level models and working on more affordable, competitive prices (> D800) by targeting higher production quantities.
danlindberg
Well-known member
Looks very good indeed :thumbup:
If I could wish freely, then I would love to have a large cmos sensor with dslr live view capability, but I suppose that is quite far away.
My second wish is that they could do a full size sensor with 40 mp. I would prefer a little fatter pixels....
But hey, I would love to use any of the three! They have many features I could use in my daily work.
Want one!!!!!!!
If I could wish freely, then I would love to have a large cmos sensor with dslr live view capability, but I suppose that is quite far away.
My second wish is that they could do a full size sensor with 40 mp. I would prefer a little fatter pixels....
But hey, I would love to use any of the three! They have many features I could use in my daily work.
Want one!!!!!!!
P
Paul66
Guest
WOW thats nice to know being I just bought a Aptus II 6
It has little to do with CCD vs CMOS. You get faster refresh rates with 35mm
DSLR cameras because they use line skipping techniques in order to get the data out and processed quickly. Also the processors are much faster.
Just look at how the D800 can process 1080 video. Scale it in real time for the on camera screen and out put uncompressed HDMI. That is massive data throughput . MF digital backs don't come close to these speeds.
Nikon D800 stills 36 MP at 4 frames per second .... no comparison.
Canon 1d X 18 MP at 10-12 frames per second.... no comparison.
As far as quality goes there have been significant improvements in CMOS, while CCD have not changed in this last generation, just a little bit more functionality. Fuji's new sensor in the X-pro 1 is simply amazing considering it's size. At it's resolution nothing out there beats it. If Fuji scales it up to larger formats it will be the standard to beat. The x-pro 1 at half the size already looks as good as or better than most full frame DSLR camera.
Fuji may well scale the sensor up to a FF 35mm size or even medium format.
After all Fuji already has the lenses and all the MF know how and above all in house sensor design and manufacturing, as well as a history of making CCD and CMOS sensors.