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

yaya

Active member
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.
You're mixing a few different things here...
Digital backs use full-frame CCD technology, as opposed to Interline CCD technology, which is the one used in P&S and video cameras

The Dalsa 33MP sensor, for example, can provide a maximum of 4fps (RAW 16-bit stills) if all 4 outputs are used. Trouble is that the noise/signal ratio will go up and also there are no MF bodies that can take 4fps*

In Live View, Leaf backs do 5-6fps at 100% zoom as we utilise sub-sampling (something like binning)

CMOS, in a way, is closer to Interline CCDs. There's a Kodak 29MP Interline sensor that is used for industrial and aerial applications, however is is only 24x36mm....

So right now, if you want/ need to go either larger than 24x36 or more than 36MP, your answer is a digital back, proof.

BR
Yair

* The AFi/Hy6 camera can do 4fps in mirror-up mode. I can show you a video that demonstrates it
 

FredBGG

Not Available
You're mixing a few different things here...
Digital backs use full-frame CCD technology, as opposed to Interline CCD technology, which is the one used in P&S and video cameras

The Dalsa 33MP sensor, for example, can provide a maximum of 4fps (RAW 16-bit stills) if all 4 outputs are used. Trouble is that the noise/signal ratio will go up and also there are no MF bodies that can take 4fps*

In Live View, Leaf backs do 5-6fps at 100% zoom as we utilise sub-sampling (something like binning)

CMOS, in a way, is closer to Interline CCDs. There's a Kodak 29MP Interline sensor that is used for industrial and aerial applications, however is is only 24x36mm....

So right now, if you want/ need to go either larger than 24x36 or more than 36MP, your answer is a digital back, proof.

BR
Yair

* The AFi/Hy6 camera can do 4fps in mirror-up mode. I can show you a video that demonstrates it

The line skiping I was referring to is regarding the live view preview.
This reduces the processing required to get the info onto the LCD on the back of the camera while leaving plenty of processing power to run live view autofocusing and face recognition for up to 4 faces.
 

Egor

Member
Hi, am new here and reading this thread with great interest. Just finished testing in my studio a Hasselblad 200MS and PhaseOneIQ180 as well as BetterLight 6k scan back.
My biggest gripe with all of them was no LiveView like I get out of my dslr's.

My question is this: why does it need to be the exact same sensor that takes the photos that also produces the LiveView? Can it not be a secondary sensor or small video camera in there reading off the mirror?
I mean, for $40+K this is a big deal and possible deal breaker for me. I really need the LiveView that I get out of dslr's and the IQ and file size that MFD produces.
BetterLight has none, Hasselblad's is archaic and slow, and PhaseOne's is 3fps and noisy.
Why not a dedicated secondary sensor just for this?
 

coulombic

New member
Hi, am new here and reading this thread with great interest. Just finished testing in my studio a Hasselblad 200MS and PhaseOneIQ180 as well as BetterLight 6k scan back.
My biggest gripe with all of them was no LiveView like I get out of my dslr's.

My question is this: why does it need to be the exact same sensor that takes the photos that also produces the LiveView? Can it not be a secondary sensor or small video camera in there reading off the mirror?
I mean, for $40+K this is a big deal and possible deal breaker for me. I really need the LiveView that I get out of dslr's and the IQ and file size that MFD produces.
BetterLight has none, Hasselblad's is archaic and slow, and PhaseOne's is 3fps and noisy.
Why not a dedicated secondary sensor just for this?
Seems, in order to get the same FoV, it would need to be of equal size to the CCD. By the same, where would you put it? It needs to be positioned *exactly* where the CCD is as to have the focus obtained during LiveView remain relevant. I think a second sensor is an incredibly unlikely approach.

That said, it stands to reason that future MF backs could be a composite of CMOS and CCD technology.
 

Egor

Member
Thank you, Gabe.
I guess I do not need exact same FoV for the LV feed, just similar. Also, if the viewfinder shows near 100% FoV as claimed, why not put the LV sensor where my eyeball goes? Once a setup is achieved in studio, we rarely look thru the camera conventionally anymore. We always project the LV feed onto large screens anyway.
In any case, the IQ180 with its noisy 3fps LV could work and I can prolly live with it; but my stylists are going to complain mightily.
Thanks again, and this Leaf for $10k less than IQ180 looks amazing! I will put it on my shortlist of mfd I am considering for studio work.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
Seems, in order to get the same FoV, it would need to be of equal size to the CCD. By the same, where would you put it? It needs to be positioned *exactly* where the CCD is as to have the focus obtained during LiveView remain relevant. I think a second sensor is an incredibly unlikely approach.
Several of the Sony DSLR models have used a secondary sensor in the pentamirror assembly to provide an alternative live view mode. It hasn't been ideal for focusing, but it does establish proof of principle.

You don't necessarily need to have the same FOV to make it worth having as an auxiliary device for fine focusing.

Where to put it? Anywhere in the camera body where you can establish an optical path that makes it an accurate focus analog.

That said, I also don't think it likely. I imagine that the design and manufacturing complexity required to achieve the desired precision in focusing with the auxiliary device would add substantially to the price of the body, and I doubt Hasselblad or Phase One would reckon that the payoff in increased sales would be sufficient to return the investment.
 

Egor

Member
Sooo, do I understand you correctly that the ground glass in the viewfinder is not an accurate focus analog?
If it isn't, I am surprised, must be a MF thing? If it is, I guess I can rig a 5D2 to the viewfinder and use it as a LV sensor ( not that I would, just that I could).
I guess I am just missing something here, but it just doesn't appear to be that technically hard to me.
Price point? We are talking about $$$50Large here, that's serious $$. If it cost an additional $1500-3000 to have "real LV" I would not blink, and neither would many studios I know. Just offer it as an accessory :)
Anyway, interesting.
 

FredBGG

Not Available
I have suggested this before.

Replacing the focusing screen with a secondary sensor... even low res.

A lot could be obtained this way.

You could get AF anywhere in the frame with contrast detection. You could get real time live view.

There are ultra low light low res sensors that are designed to be quite large so as to gather more light. The sensors could be cheap as that would not have to be perfect and a few dead pixels would be no big deal.

However the real solution if to simply scale up Fuji's new sensor technology that is already in the X-pro 1. At that point you would no longer need a mirror box and lens designs would not have to accommodate for a mirror box.
 

Oren Grad

Active member
Sooo, do I understand you correctly that the ground glass in the viewfinder is not an accurate focus analog?
It is often not accurate enough for the demands that users of high-MP FF and MF DSLRs make of their files.

If it isn't, I am surprised, must be a MF thing?
It is true of cameras with smaller sensors as well.

I guess I am just missing something here, but it just doesn't appear to be that technically hard to me.
It is very costly to manufacture to the required tolerances. $5000 for a camera body is not enough to assure it.

Alpa, which for $$$$ sells what are essentially exquisitely-machined metal frames, provides shims and adjustable mounts to allow compensation for manufacturing tolerances in the various components that stack together with the frame to make the imaging path. And that's even without having to allow for an in-line viewing system, which would require further provision for adjustment to match it to the imaging path.
 

Egor

Member
I guess there are tolerances and then there are TOLERANCES...:)
Fortunately, mine are met with mostly off-the-shelf high end stuff.
Thanks for the info!
 

SergeiR

New member
Enough with Fuji pep talk, seriously. This is topic about new offer from Leaf. Can we stop with all the abstracts and kinda concentrate on CREDO stuff?

I am personally interested in hearing experiences, seeing results, and if at all possible - hear from Steve and others about possible upgrade trade-ins (i guess i won't be doing it with Optech folks, seeing that its closing, despite being me MFD vendor). I am starting to ponder upgrading 22mp 54s, either to IQ or to CREDO sometime in next few months, so all the off topic does is irritating, and not helping, sorry.
 
Last edited:

yaya

Active member
Had 45 minutes to kill between breakfast and brunch on Sunday, so I took the Credo 80 prototype with a DF and a 150mm/2.8 D to the RAF museum in Hendon to see Bonhams' classic cars auction













 

hcubell

Well-known member
This is a thread introducing the new Credo folks. I would like to hear about IT myself.

I am not surprised about the drift in the thread. It's hard to be excited about the Credo backs when you look at what Nikon has achieved with the D800 and the D800e. The Credo backs do not look like anything more than IQ backs that have been stripped of certain features and cost a few thousand dollars less. Is there any groundbreaking technology that I have missed?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Howard I have the D800 it's not MF but it's very good and best in class for 35mm. Key word there 35mm. Bottom line you want MF quality you need a MF back. Nothing has really changed except the Nikon got closer to it.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The real underlining issue here is there is not a damn thing out there in 35mm that can even come close to what a tech cam can do. You want great wide angle ,rise/ fall shift and movements you need a back the Credo is a great option for existing Leaf users to upgrade too or folks to buy new and when is cheaper costs a problem. LOL
 

jagsiva

Active member
Yair,

I got the upgrade prices for the Credo 80 from my dealer. The cost to upgrade from the Aptus II 12 is almost the same as the cost to upgrade from the Aptus II 10. What is the logic behind this? If feel like I'm being penalized for buying your flagship product.
 

lance_schad

Workshop Member
Great shots Yair!

If anyone is in the NY area and may want to get a look at the Credo please let me know. We have limited access to one over the next few days.
Have been playing with it and the quality is beautiful.

Lance (email me)
 
Top