Leaf versus Phase

[ptomsu]

Folks,

I might getting a pain here but meanwhile you know that I am comparing all the possible MF and MFDB solutions and so I have another question.

I visited the local Leaf representative in Austria today and we discussed several solutions. I think I am almost at the point where I know which camera system to go and this is Mamiya / Phase based on the Mamiya 645 AFDIII and some of the D lenses. I almost am skipping Leica S2 and Hasselblad, not completely sure but almost convinced.

Now for the Mamiya MF Camera system I could either go with a Phase Back (most probably a P45+) or a Leaf back (most probably the Leaf Aptus II7 which has a 33MP Dalsa chip).

My question is, has anyone here experience with Leaf or Leaf versus Phase and can a bit elaborate on this? Also SW of course is interesting for me as well as support and robustness of the backs. Especially the Leaf backs have this vent cooling, which Leaf says is robust but I am not sure if no moving parts would not be better as in the Phase solution.

Price wise the Leaf solution is very interesting.

Thanks for another feedback here.

 

[jdbfreeheel]

Peter,

There are far more "expert" users here than me, but I will share that I am very happy with my Leaf Aptus II 6 (28mp) digital back. I use it with both the Mamiya AFDIII (same as Phase body) as well as the Horseman SWD II technical camera. Image quality is beautiful. I do use the Leaf Software and like it, though many argue that C1 is cleaner and more robust. I think it's still a toss-up, but I've only demo'ed C1. My workflow for Leaf files is through the Leaf software and then into Lightroom.

I also really appreciate the touchscreen based system on the Leaf back, especially with the AFD and the Horseman, to review images, etc, and the fan is a non-issue for me. The drawback of the Leaf back is the exposure limit (32 seconds or so) which can be limiting in out of doors, fading light situations, specially with the Horseman technical camera. The Phase + systems clearly have the advntage there. When I made the decision, I decided that probably less than 5% of my shots could use the longer exposures, so I decided to go with Leaf with the touchscreen interface. However, if you feel that the long exposure shot is something you're thinking about, I'd say it's no contest. Between Leaf, Hasselblad, and Phase backs, I think there can be arguments made that image quality is generally on par. No huge difference between the three, unless you shoot in specific circumstances (do you shoot studio a ton, then maybe go Hasselblad or Leaf Hy6 systme, if you shoot long exposure , go Phase, if you prefer the workflow of the touchscreen and consistent image quality, go Leaf with AFD, if you're going to use a technical camera, go either Leaf or Phase), and so on.

As for interaction between the AFD III and the Leaf back, I've never had any problems with it. No lock-ups, no stalls, etc.

Related to price, though there certainly are deals floating around and some expensive glass and accessories in different systems, you'll probably spend about the same for the different systems, when all said and done.

And lastly, given your location and depending on your use, you're going to want to consider sales/support. Are you someone who needs 24 support from a dealer or even on the weekends? You'll have to weigh that option yourself based on accessibility.

Just my two cents.

 

[ddk]

For me what it came down to in the end was a matter of personal preference and speed rather than finding one better than the other. I compared the Phase 25 and 45 to the Leaf 75S & 22 and came away with the two Leaf backs. The 75S and Aptus II7 have the same chip and am assuming that they're the same than different. Both brands have great quality but I ended up liking Leaf's tonality and tonal range more to my liking than the Phase units. I shoot people and skin tones are very important to me and I find Leaf files more to my liking the Phase One's. The other big issue for me was the difference in software, I prefer Leaf Capture over Cap 1, though I'm told that the new C1 is better than whatever version I tested in October, but I'm not sure.

Ergonomically Leaf's display is way ahead of P1, I like the fan, specially when I'm shooting outdoors in the heat, on a beach or in the desert. The other difference that I found was the shooting rate between the two, Leaf was quite a bit quicker, that does make a difference for me. Since I'll never have enough patience to wait an hour for a shot the long exposure on the P+ backs was never of any interest .

PS. I shoot Contax

 

[dougpeterson]

Folks,

I might getting a pain here but meanwhile you know that I am comparing all the possible MF and MFDB solutions and so I have another question.

I visited the local Leaf representative in Austria today and we discussed several solutions. I think I am almost at the point where I know which camera system to go and this is Mamiya / Phase based on the Mamiya 645 AFDIII and some of the D lenses. I almost am skipping Leica S2 and Hasselblad, not completely sure but almost convinced.

Now for the Mamiya MF Camera system I could either go with a Phase Back (most probably a P45+) or a Leaf back (most probably the Leaf Aptus II7 which has a 33MP Dalsa chip).

My question is, has anyone here experience with Leaf or Leaf versus Phase and can a bit elaborate on this? Also SW of course is interesting for me as well as support and robustness of the backs. Especially the Leaf backs have this vent cooling, which Leaf says is robust but I am not sure if no moving parts would not be better as in the Phase solution.

Price wise the Leaf solution is very interesting.

Thanks for another feedback here.

Are you considering the 45+ over the 30+ because of the larger chip (less crop factor), the higher resolution, compatibility with tech cameras, or for other reasons?

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Jack]

My question is, has anyone here experience with Leaf or Leaf versus Phase and can a bit elaborate on this?

Both produce excellent results and there is very little to different them in net file quality. What is most different/notable IMO is the way they render color and overall tonality -- kind of like choosing between different films... And FWIW, this is not limited to differences between the two manufacturers; the Phase P65+ has more in common here with the Leaf (both having Dalsa sensors) than the P45+/25+ do, both being Kodak sensors.
~~~

Also SW of course is interesting for me

I find C1 to be superior to other MF back software, but here I highly recommend you play with both BEFORE buying to make your own decision.
~~~

as well as support

For sure you want a responsive and easily accessible dealer, regardless of backs.
~~~

and robustness of the backs. Especially the Leaf backs have this vent cooling, which Leaf says is robust but I am not sure if no moving parts would not be better as in the Phase solution.

The Phase solution is totally sealed where the Leaf back has a mini fan and vents like a laptop computer. In a quiet environment, you can hear the fan running on the Leaf back, and obviously dust and other elementals can be ingested through this open ventilation system, though I do not know how much of real-world problems that would actually cause.

Cheers,

 

[fotografz]

All other things being equal, if the base camera was to be a Mamiya AFD-III or the Phase model, I'd go with the Phase One back. This is based on having used a Mamiya 645 with a Aptus 75s.

While the Aptus produced excellent files, I never did like the clip-on battery. And while the touch screen is huge, it's very difficult to actually see in any bright light. I used a clip-on hood to help with that issue.

All in all I also think there will be a more streamlined path for things like firmware upgrades and such since Mamiya and Phase are working so closely together.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[ptomsu]

Are you considering the 45+ over the 30+ because of the larger chip (less crop factor), the higher resolution, compatibility with tech cameras, or for other reasons?

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

My consideration is

1) because I have kind of my own math, that for a 60"x40" print a P45+ is better suited from resolution. Although all discussions I initiated here in the forum and I also do with people who have experience in that area tells me that the resolution difference between the 2 backs is pretty small.

2) because of the crop factor - especially when used with the 28 it gives a nice field for landscape. And it would be more flexible thus for a tech camera too I think.

Lastly I have a tendency to buy products in general not of the "leading edge" series, but of the series just below that, and this is the P45+ in my opinion.

Having said all this, I start liking the look of the Dalsa files more and more, so I am still not sure ....

 

[ptomsu]

All other things being equal, if the base camera was to be a Mamiya AFD-III or the Phase model, I'd go with the Phase One back. This is based on having used a Mamiya 645 with a Aptus 75s.

While the Aptus produced excellent files, I never did like the clip-on battery. And while the touch screen is huge, it's very difficult to actually see in any bright light. I used a clip-on hood to help with that issue.

All in all I also think there will be a more streamlined path for things like firmware upgrades and such since Mamiya and Phase are working so closely together.

Just my 2 cents.

The battery clip below the back is also something I really do not like. And this will not go away. I think also with future models of the back.

Phase / Mamiya seems to be really more streamlined in all aspects

 

[ptomsu]

I find C1 to be superior to other MF back software, but here I highly recommend you play with both BEFORE buying to make your own decision.

I know C1 since many years as I used it very often fo proessing my DSLR files, and especially the latest versions I love very much. It fits nicely with my workflow, so this is another BIG argument not to go for a Leaf or Hasselblad solution. 50% of the image is still post processing and thus SW is so important.

 

[JimCollum]

I use the Leaf 75s (thanks Marc!!) and have been very happy with the operation and files. I've looked at both, and prefer the color and contrast rendition that the Aptus gives me (again.. as has been said.. this is a personal preference).

 

[Henry Goh]

Peter,

I recently took delivery of a Phase P30+ and love it very much.

I spent a great deal of time researching MFDBs before committing. My reason for going with Phase was primarily because of C1 Pro, which I have been suing for 2 years already. To me workflow is 50% of the effort just like the time I spent hours in the darkroom.

P1 645 camera combined with the back is quite appealing because it is probably the most compact kit at the moment. Of course a Leaf back on Mamiya camera should be close but for me, dealing with one company if things should go wrong is better than to be the go-between person dealing with 2 companies. Just my 2 cents worth.

Hope you settle on a kit soon and start to enjoy making images.

 

[PeterA]

Quick response-

I have owned used:
A Leaf 75 on H1; ( great files, useless large LCD, didn't like battery but no big deal, worked very well with Fujiblad lenses and Alpa /Schneider))

A P45+ on Phamiya body: ( great back ok software; second rate body, ok lenses, focal plane shutter, versatile adaptors for using V lenses) Switched via swap to Sinar / HY6. Dont miss teh long exposure capability. Very good back.

Currently own and use

Sinar 75Lv on Hy6 ( most versatile system because of easy adaptor changing LOVE it, crop factor a negative for wides, ( same as Leaf) best skin tones most natural colour, software needs knowledgeable user, fantastic lenses - Rollie mount Schneider and Zeiss - current issues with manufacturing and supply of lenses and Hy6/Afi bodies a real PITA)

Hasselblad H3D11-39: My benchmark system, complete, versatile, everything works - prefer Phocus to C1 - adaptor for V lenses if you need em,)

Conclusion:
All the backs make good files. All the software works - some isnt as pretty as others -GUI.

Lenses - all MF lenses are good
Technical camera use - all backs work on any technical camera you want.

When you get over the MFD as a bigger DLSR - which is the error most people will lmake - you will then understand that the best uses for any of these systems is:

1. In landscape hanging off an Alpa/Artec/Cambo etc with a Schneider or a Rodenstock on the front Or with a longer lens hanging off the camera body and using stitiching to get nice panoramas

2. In studio or Strobe useage - and tethered for technical camera useage

NONE of these systems replaces my M8 or my D3 for uses these cameras are better for.

Also - with all due respect - a lot of stuff posted on here from MFD shooters could be shot with a 35mm DSLR.

if you think ANY of these will make yoru photos better - you are wrong. if you think you will shoot hand held and get great results - you are wrong. if you think you can shoot higher ISO and get great results - you are wrong. if you expect ANy software to be just great compared to Adobe - you are wrong. if you think you wont have storage issues - you are wrong.

All of em thrive in BIG FAT LIGHT - natural or artificial. if you use them as they shoudl be used - carefully and in the right conditions - you will be very happy with files and prints.

Pete

 

[ocarlo]

hey PeterA - thanks for the illumination and confirmation.
I'd ben getting lotsa grief from friends, and sometimes from me to me, about spending
big $$ on a back, when u can just get a DSLR. Its good to hear someone else be clear about why I want one.
cheers,
Big Fat Light lover (natural or unnatural)

 

[dougpeterson]

hey PeterA - thanks for the illumination and confirmation.
I'd ben getting lotsa grief from friends, and sometimes from me to me, about spending
big $$ on a back, when u can just get a DSLR. Its good to hear someone else be clear about why I want one.
cheers,
Big Fat Light lover (natural or unnatural)

Just wait. You'll buy one and each of those friends will call you to ask to borrow it!

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870 | Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up

 

[Jack]

Pete,

I pretty much agree with everything you say except this:

if you expect ANy software to be just great compared to Adobe - you are wrong.

If you know what you are doing, you can extract WAY more detail out of a Phase file using C1 than you can Adobe (ACR/LR), period, no contest, end of story. Next are the built-in lens corrections for some of the Mamiya lenses in C1. These really work and Adobe does NOT have them.

Now you may prefer the Adobe or Phocus workflow and I won't argue that, but I happen to prefer C1 -- different strokes. However, from a strict file quality and fully integrated system & workflow standpoint, Phase/C1 is pretty high on the list if not at the top...

Cheers,

 

[ptomsu]

Pete,

I pretty much agree with everything you say except this:



If you know what you are doing, you can extract WAY more detail out of a Phase file using C1 than you can Adobe (ACR/LR), period, no contest, end of story. Next are the built-in lens corrections for some of the Mamiya lenses in C1. These really work and Adobe does NOT have them.

Now you may prefer the Adobe or Phocus workflow and I won't argue that, but I happen to prefer C1 -- different strokes. However, from a strict file quality and fully integrated system & workflow standpoint, Phase/C1 is pretty high on the list if not at the top...

Cheers,

Jack,

I am coming slowly to this conclusion as well - of course not with all the practical experiences you all have with MFDBs but with what I know from SW and other systems and some few test shots.

Most important is to have a system as completely supported as possible. It NEVER works (my experience) if you have to rely on multiple cooks. Also I am most used to C1 already, which is another significantly heavy argument.

And I actually kind of do not like the battery placement and the cooling of the Leaf, even if the files should be superior, which I cannot judge. I would get a correction CD from Leaf for the Mamiya lenses, but I am almost sure this update will be always later compared to Phase/Mamiya - this is what my experience with differnt other systems tells me :toocool:

So I am kind of moving down the road to a Phase solution - but give me some time, miracles can always happen

I need a great offer !!! :thumbup:

 

[Guy Mancuso]

The other issue is Adobe does not like the Phase files very much . Now that may have changed since I threw Lightroom off my system but it sucked when I tried it . Everything was 2 stops under and color balance was in left field. Not entirely Adobes fault since it really does not support the Phase files but just getting a base level was a PITA. Now all this could have changed I don't know but one thing also Phase files in C1 you can use all the lens corrections and such, plus it is fine tuned for there backs. Also any bolt on lenses are supported like Hassy V glass.

Just like any software from Leaf, Sinar and Hassy there software is tuned to there backs. If you don't like there software than you have to look at third party software which may not support everything the the OEM software does. Phocus is a prime example with there lens corrections. Don't think any other software will support that. I think the bottom line on a back is also like the software it comes with. Third party may work well but may not support everything either. Personally I went Phase because I already had a lot of experience with C1 so for me it was a natural decision. Be it you like a software package better than another than go with the back that goes with it. It's a multiple decision when you buy a back or a system you also need to think about there software.

 

[Jack]

And I actually kind of do not like the battery placement and the cooling of the Leaf, even if the files should be superior, which I cannot judge.

Peter,

To clarify, I think that saying Leaf or Phase is superior is difficult. The P45+ has more total resolution than the Leaf 75S by about 6MP and one could argue this is visible in a large print -- but I wouldn't. IMO the real difference is in teh way they render color, and this will be a personal preference.

Speaking for myself when I was in your shoes, I actually preferred the smoother look of the Leaf file slightly, and in fact started out trying to buy the Leaf. But then I played around with the conversion softwares, and realized I was far more comfortable with C1 than Leaf Capture. Then in a matter of hours, I figured out how to alter the Phase conversion stock C1 settings to look smoother than stock, making the differences between the two sets of files a totally moot point for me.

One other small advantage the P45+ back, at least for me in landscape situations. The rear LCD while almost ridiculously small, is of very high resolution -- high enough that when you zoom in, you can easily judge accuracy of focus on it. The Leaf back has that nice large screen, but it is of lower resolution and more difficult to judge precise focus IMO. A small observation offered only FWIW...

Cheers,

 

[Don Libby]

Peter

I owed both a P30+ and now a P45+ and if I hadn't taken my landscape photography to the Cambo RS1000 I'd still be using the P30+. I have an image, "Desert View" of the South Rim Grand Canyon that is 30x60 taken with a 35mm lens (actually two images merged into a panorama).

I've used the Mamiya 28mm on both the P30+ and P45+ with great results as well.

So if you think you might begin shooting with a technical camera then get the P45+ otherwise you might want to give the P30+ some consideration.

Oh and an added not to expand off Jack's regarding the screen - yes it sucks (that's a highly technical term) and the only thing I use it for is to check alignment and more importantly the histogram.

Again just my 2 cents worth...

Don

 

[PeterA]

jack thanks for your correction : of course one must use software corrections for lenses when needed ! My workflow is shoot/native raw processor/export/catalogue ( lightroom) / work Photoshop/save/print.

Interestingly over the last 2 years - 80% of my stored shots have ended up being from Alpa - my own statistical analysis based on MY shooting regarding best shots from MFD indicates that unless I take great care and use a tripod etc - the files I end up are no better than a 35mm camera.

two things follow:

1. I get the most from my MFD backs when used on a tripod and FAT LIGHT
2. I get the best technical results from my Schneider

So I have stopped investing in MF glass. irrespective of manufacturer - they aren't in the same league as Schneider or Rodenstock - but are priced as if they are 2X better!

So I am now looking for a system which gives me 3 things for portable outdoor shooting on a tripod.

1. What my Alpa does already
2. Shift ( for nodal point stitiching )
3. Tilt ( for dramatic near and far DOF in landscapes and corrected verticals in urban settings )

For landscape and environmental urban shooting in natural light I will end up with 3-4 Schneider / Rodenstock lenses on an artec or an Arca Swiss R3D.

For studio type artificial light work - Hasselblad.

This month's project for me is borrowing a Rollie Xact and seeing if it gives me a better system for studio work than Hasselblad for still life stuff I like doing. The HTS 1.5 pricing makes buying a second hand Riollie Xact with a few lenses pretty much a no brainer - IF I really am going to get any use out of such a system.

Good luck Peter - this stuff is all very much about what you are shooting and what you are going to do with teh shots afterwards. These all depend on each individual.

As I have indicated in past thereads for me 50% of the fun is the journey of discovery. If wind didnt exist and if I had time - I would probably be shooting 10X8 or larger for landscapes. it is very funny that a system that one can put together for a couple of thousand bucks - KILLS digital anything for wide angle 3 dimensionality and control. However - the hassles involved at the moment arent worth it - I just dont have the time or the energy. Maybe RED with their promised 617 chip will even make true LF film redundant - who knows?

btw I picked up a drum scanner in pristine immaculate condition for $1000 bucks a few weeks ago. Currently it is in storage wrapped in palstic on a pallette it weihgs a ton - along with an obsolete 10 year old mac which runs the software. - my option on bettter days and more time -

Cheers.