Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: ondebanks on November 05, 2012, 12:26:31 PM

Title: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on November 05, 2012, 12:26:31 PM
OK, I guess many of you will have received this email from Mamiya Leaf Marketing this morning: "Leaf Aptus-II: Great value, amazing image quality"

I read down through it...and this irked me:
"The Leaf Aptus-II delivers stunning, film-like quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution"

That is true only under a restricted set of criteria: short exposures only, low ISO only. To make such a claim without those necessary qualifications is misleading. "The industry" is full of "capture devices" that can make Aptus-II images look very poor in comparison, in a variety of real-world shooting conditions.

Then I clicked through the "Read more" link to the webpage, and it got worse:

"unsurpassed 12 f-stops of dynamic range" - now that is absolutely false. Other cameras have exceeeded 12 f-stops already, even 13 f-stops.

It does the MFD sector no favours when companies make false claims like this.

They even contradict themselves, on the same page!
"The Leaf Aptus-II 10R...is the only back with an internal rotating sensor. "
Scroll up a wee bit and there's this: "On the Leaf Aptus-II 12R, you can change from landscape to portrait orientation with a simple turn of the Leaf Verto internal sensor rotation dial."
So the Aptus-II 10R is not the only one. That's just sloppy...the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

Ray

Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 05, 2012, 12:32:25 PM
Wow, this is a tough forum, Fred.... I mean Ray.   ;)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 05, 2012, 12:44:33 PM
Hi,

I think Ray is into long exposures and nows technology from his background in astronomy.

Best regards
Erik

Wow, this is a tough forum, Fred.... I mean Ray.   ;)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Don Libby on November 05, 2012, 01:13:01 PM
Caveat emptor comes to mind.  Do your own research before buying into any hype.  If it suits your needs okay otherwise walk away.  This truly isn't in Rays best interest.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: TMARK on November 05, 2012, 01:18:25 PM
Well, perhaps true, but this isn't an intentional conspiracy.  My guess: its old copy "copied and pasted" into a new ad.  I think the back makers' marketing is in house, and it shows. 
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: EricWHiss on November 05, 2012, 01:53:52 PM
Hi,

I think Ray is into long exposures and nows technology from his background in astronomy.

Best regards
Erik


Yeah, I was out in Utah shooting at Devil's garden at night and quite pleased with my shots at 32 secs with the AFi-ii 12, but was trumped by my friends shooting d800's at 4 minutes.  However I think an older P45+ would have taken all.  Anyhow, long exposure is a different metric and I don't think was in the marketing e-mail originally cited?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ndevlin on November 05, 2012, 01:55:39 PM
Wow. If Leaf's ad bugs you this much I can't even begin to fathom how you feel about the US election..... :o

- N.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: yaya on November 05, 2012, 02:14:38 PM
That's just sloppy...the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing.

That's because I'm the only lefty in the company and I did much of the copy so feel free to shoot me ;)

But seriously read the message as a WHOLE and perhaps give the Aptus a try and then the tagline will start making a lot of sense?

Yair
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Don Libby on November 05, 2012, 02:23:38 PM
Why read the entire message when you can cherry pick and stir the pot?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: HarperPhotos on November 05, 2012, 03:19:24 PM
Hello,

Sorry guy’s but I’m with Ray on this one. We all know that manufactures and advertisers can stretch the true to breaking point but Ray makes some very good points in Leafs latest campaign.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: yaya on November 05, 2012, 03:24:25 PM
Hello,

Sorry guy’s but I’m with Ray on this one. We all know that manufactures and advertisers can stretch the true to breaking point but Ray makes some very good points in Leafs latest campaign.

Cheers

Simon

Simon like I said to Ray, feel free to shoot me ;)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Dustbak on November 05, 2012, 03:35:13 PM
Or car salesmen? Do we need to go on a crusade to alter their bad behaviour too?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: HarperPhotos on November 05, 2012, 03:40:46 PM
Hi Yaya,

No worries mate I still love ya.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Don Libby on November 05, 2012, 03:53:24 PM
Hi Yaya,

No worries mate I still love ya.

Cheers

Simon

Once again we need a "LIKE" button!

Don
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Doug Peterson on November 05, 2012, 06:16:18 PM
While we're at it, did anyone see the NYC subway ads for Jameson.

Taste above all else? Are they serious?? Their whiskey is by no means the whiskey that places taste above cost/convenience/quantity/safety.

Also I've heard their founder is only an ok arm wrestler.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LX51mbSSmpA/T1gnIjnAeJI/AAAAAAAACm4/BWRW2JU922k/s640/legendary-tales-of-john-jameson-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: BernardLanguillier on November 05, 2012, 07:41:32 PM
Marketing as a (w)hole has been commiting a slow suicide for years.

The core problem is often poor product specification/positioning though. Not speaking about Leaf here.

Good marketing can be done and to has be focused on real value for customers and drive product define in the first place.

"Design the product you'll be able to market in a realistic way" should be the moto of all companies... But few have the ability to do this.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on November 05, 2012, 08:17:41 PM
USB 3 anyone?

Does it work yet?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Mr. Rib on November 05, 2012, 08:36:14 PM
Portra 400 - 15 stops of measured dynamic range. Take that Leaf (or Phase One at that matter).
But seriously, marketing = misleading & confusing and that's true for all the products that are advertised. So I guess it's nothing new.. It's different though when you hear that kind of things from your dealer, when you are discussing a possible purchase. The talk gets particular and the dealers should be much more careful when they choose their words.. sad thing is that I can easily imagine a MFDB dealer feeding a potential client with that kind of crap and that is not ok.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: HarperPhotos on November 05, 2012, 08:50:31 PM
Hello,

Yes I remember all those may years ago when I purchased my Leaf Aptus 75 from a company in Australia.

At know time was I told of the inherent problem of digital backs called colour moiré before I made my purchase.

Well the very first shoot with my gleaming new toy and wham the rugby players I was shooting there uniforms they are were wearing all light up like Christmas trees with colour moiré.

Well I get in touch with the rep in Australia and after calling him a number of expletives I get “oh didn’t I tell you about that".

Don’t ya just want to scream when that happens.

Well I'm off to the pub to watch the Melbourne Cup.

Cheers

Simon
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: abiggs on November 05, 2012, 09:47:54 PM
troll

noun


One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on November 05, 2012, 10:57:20 PM
Hi,

If you check Ray's previous postings you find that he is no troll. As far as I understand he is an experienced MFDB user with background in both astronomy and capture devices.

I don't know why he made the original posting. I'm pretty sure that we all are used to quite a bit of marketing hyperbole.

Also, I would say that the points Ray mentions are not with merit. I would also ask, what does "film like" mean? Tri-X, Panatomic-X, Velvia or Provia like?

I guess that Ray has an issue with all Dalsa based backs since he has serious interest in astrophotography and it seems that Dalsa chips don't work well at long exposures, something the older P45 backs did extremely well.

Best regards
Erik



troll

noun


One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Bryan Conner on November 06, 2012, 12:47:12 AM
USB 3 anyone?

Does it work yet?

Of course it does.  I have a usb 3 card reader that is extremely fast, it delivers what was promised by Lexar.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on November 06, 2012, 11:03:07 AM
USB 3 anyone?

Does it work yet?

USB 3 on IQ or Credo backs....
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on November 07, 2012, 11:44:00 AM

It does the MFD sector no favours when companies make false claims like this.



Ray



You can add non functional USB 3 to that list.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Marlyn on November 08, 2012, 02:46:36 PM
You are looking for Truth in advertising ?

That is like looking for Ice on the sun.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: jeremypayne on November 08, 2012, 02:51:07 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

Casablanca ...
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 15, 2013, 11:42:08 AM
Well folks, I’m back after an absence forced by various work and family circumstances...can’t believe it’s been 5 months now!

I thought I’d take up where I left off...which was this thread that I started.

Very interesting to read the large range of responses. I’ll try to get to all the main points that were made and the people who made them:

Yair: Glad to see your humourous take on it! Is “so shoot me!” an officially sanctioned response in the Leaf Customer Service training manual? ;) - ha, don’t worry, it’s fine between friends. Actually, I had no idea that you did your marketing copy in-house yourself, and if I’d known you were double-/triple-jobbing I would not have been so harsh. Sorry, man.

Erik with a ‘k’, Simon: thanks for the support – you guys saw the point I was making (and even remembered my background in astronomical imaging and detectors).

Eric with a ‘c’: you seem to have confused me with FredBGG. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t. We are not intellectually joined at the hip...

Doug: Clever riposte! Was the Jameson advert specifically chosen to target my nationality? Just goes to show that marketing is commonly OTT in many jurisdictions. There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera. Where I live, the Advertising Standards Authority (http://www.asai.ie) has the power to quash an advert which makes false or misleading claims of the latter type. (Their complaint handling is a transparent process and it’s quite interesting to read their online Complaints Bulletins (http://www.asai.ie/complaints.asp) to see which ones were upheld and which were rejected, and why).

Several of you: What I found quite remarkable is how many of you (most if not all US-based?) were resigned to low standards in advertising, generally. Do you not have something like the aforementioned ASAI over there?

Andy: you deserve a special reply. In 22 years of active internet usage, not once was I ever called a troll. On the contrary, I usually go out of my way to be helpful and informative and above all, factually accurate. So you have broken my troll duck; you’ve deflowered my troll virginity. I am slightly tickled at that. But next time, you might want to check a member’s post history before jumping in with the name-calling?

Anyway, glad to be back on LL.
Ray



Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: LKaven on April 15, 2013, 12:32:04 PM
There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera.

This is the key point.  I think it belongs in the collection of things that includes claims for "16 bit" images.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Doug Peterson on April 15, 2013, 12:56:57 PM
Well folks, I’m back after an absence forced by various work and family circumstances...can’t believe it’s been 5 months now!

Hope your family is well!
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 15, 2013, 01:55:30 PM
Ray,

It is nice to have you back!

Best regards
Erik

Well folks, I’m back after an absence forced by various work and family circumstances...can’t believe it’s been 5 months now!

I thought I’d take up where I left off...which was this thread that I started.

Very interesting to read the large range of responses. I’ll try to get to all the main points that were made and the people who made them:

Yair: Glad to see your humourous take on it! Is “so shoot me!” an officially sanctioned response in the Leaf Customer Service training manual? ;) - ha, don’t worry, it’s fine between friends. Actually, I had no idea that you did your marketing copy in-house yourself, and if I’d known you were double-/triple-jobbing I would not have been so harsh. Sorry, man.

Erik with a ‘k’, Simon: thanks for the support – you guys saw the point I was making (and even remembered my background in astronomical imaging and detectors).

Eric with a ‘c’: you seem to have confused me with FredBGG. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t. We are not intellectually joined at the hip...

Doug: Clever riposte! Was the Jameson advert specifically chosen to target my nationality? Just goes to show that marketing is commonly OTT in many jurisdictions. There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera. Where I live, the Advertising Standards Authority (http://www.asai.ie) has the power to quash an advert which makes false or misleading claims of the latter type. (Their complaint handling is a transparent process and it’s quite interesting to read their online Complaints Bulletins (http://www.asai.ie/complaints.asp) to see which ones were upheld and which were rejected, and why).

Several of you: What I found quite remarkable is how many of you (most if not all US-based?) were resigned to low standards in advertising, generally. Do you not have something like the aforementioned ASAI over there?

Andy: you deserve a special reply. In 22 years of active internet usage, not once was I ever called a troll. On the contrary, I usually go out of my way to be helpful and informative and above all, factually accurate. So you have broken my troll duck; you’ve deflowered my troll virginity. I am slightly tickled at that. But next time, you might want to check a member’s post history before jumping in with the name-calling?

Anyway, glad to be back on LL.
Ray




Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 15, 2013, 11:40:06 PM
Hi Ray,

I my suggest that the industry has some problems with measurable quantities. It is often forgotten that we are actually dealing with physics.

Take DR. To my best knowledge it is both measurable and well defined. Photographic marketing has made it into some esotheric quantity. Personally, I don't think that DR is the paramount quality in imaging. I was shooting Velvia in my film days, not a film known for wide dynamic range. That said, I of course regard extended DR to be a good thing. Good DR has a natural coupling to good high ISO performance. A system performing well at high ISO doesn't need to have good DR, but a system with great DR is capable of handling underexposure well, which is essentially he same as increasing ISO.

Or three D-look. I'm am pretty sure about different people meaning different things by 3D-look. One aspect is essentially the ability to achieve sense of depth by selective focus, which requires good large aperture performance. Other folks may mean high microcontrast, which may mean high MTF near Nyquist (which may be a good thing or bad thing).

Than we have the perception of CCDs giving better color than CMOS. I can imagine, that CCD sensors as a group give different colors than CMOS sensors as a group, but I can hardly believe that the possible differences in color rendition have to do with circuit design and a lot to do with CGA and processing.

We know, I think, that high MTF near Nyquist produces fake detail. I get the impression that fake detail is widely accepted and appreciated as long as it is not showing up as color moiré.

I have bought many cameras, essentially went with most upgrades within my systems. For me, the major driver behind this was essentially the need for a good camera with live view, that I regard to be essential for my way of making pictures. I use it for pinpoint focusing.

I have little doubt that the new cameras I have are "better" than the old ones, but they don't make better pictures. Pictures are about subject, light and perception. Technology can help and expand possibilities.

Best regards
Erik



Doug: Clever riposte! Was the Jameson advert specifically chosen to target my nationality? Just goes to show that marketing is commonly OTT in many jurisdictions. There is a difference though, between subjective and unquantifiable parameters of a product like the “taste” of a whiskey, and factually quantifiable parameters like the “dynamic range” of a camera. Where I live, the Advertising Standards Authority (http://www.asai.ie) has the power to quash an advert which makes false or misleading claims of the latter type. (Their complaint handling is a transparent process and it’s quite interesting to read their online Complaints Bulletins (http://www.asai.ie/complaints.asp) to see which ones were upheld and which were rejected, and why).


Anyway, glad to be back on LL.
Ray




Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: sbernthal on April 16, 2013, 02:34:21 AM
I will take this chance to address you original post:

"The Leaf Aptus-II delivers stunning, film-like quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution"
How is that not true? This is a statement about image quality, not features. Leaf Aptus is targeted mainly at studio shooters. High ISO and long exposures are not basic features for that demo. You can also fault their camera for not having: the best auto focus, the best shooting speed, the best video capability,  auto-ISO, JPEG in camera - there are many many features that exist in a Canon 1DX that are missing from a Leaf camera - that does not make Canon the better camera, or the quoted statement untrue. I guess there is an undecided argument that when you mention "image quality" - are you talking about image quality under the best circumstances, or the worst circumstances, or some kind of average between the two. To me it makes sense that it is measured under the best circumstances, unless specified otherwise.

"quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry" - Copy from 2010, still as far as image quality alone, I don't think it has become untrue. They are not saying it's better than everyone else, just that it is on the front line with the other "bests".

"unsurpassed 12 f-stops of dynamic range" - As was pointed out here, the original copy was written in 2010 when it was indeed the best dynamic range in the market. Careless copy paste and neglect to effectively review copy before it goes out. I'm pretty sure they didn't release that statement after careful review and with intent to deceive. Still, I guess this is the one thing you can really fault them here.

"the only back with an internal rotating sensor" - I was not aware of other backs with *internal* rotating sensor. I know on cameras like GX680 or RZ67 you can rotate the backs, but what other backs have internal rotation, without using the camera's rotation or taking the back out?

Usage of words like "stunning", "unrivaled", "unsurpassed" - This is a common disease of Israeli marketing. They've latched on the the hyperbole way of creating marketing statements, and it's very hard to convince them that sometimes a reserved statement can make a better impression.



Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: eronald on April 16, 2013, 02:53:39 AM
I have found that sample shots on the Canon site are usually typical or even *worse* than what one can expect to get from the camera. Only case of truth in camera advertising I am aware of.

Edmund


You are looking for Truth in advertising ?

That is like looking for Ice on the sun.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: torger on April 16, 2013, 03:21:48 AM
I have found that sample shots on the Canon site are usually typical or even *worse* than what one can expect to get from the camera. Only case of truth in camera advertising I am aware of.

The other case is Nikon... it seems like mediocre or even bad sample shots is a very strong tradition with Japanese camera manufacturers.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 16, 2013, 03:29:29 AM
Hi,

Well, my guess is that some potential buyers intend to use the camera outside the studio.

Regarding the DR stuff, Nikon D3X that has been introduced 2008 had DR in excess of 12EV (12.8 at the pixel level), so the Aptus numbers were clearly not best in 2010. But full frame DSLRs are perhaps a different market?!

Ray indicated that he got the mail in question from Leaf marketing 2012-05, so if Leaf claims to have market leading performance that would refer to the late 2012 not 2010.

So, I think Ray is absolutely correct in his statement.

Best regards
Erik



I will take this chance to address you original post:

"The Leaf Aptus-II delivers stunning, film-like quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution"
How is that not true? This is a statement about image quality, not features. Leaf Aptus is targeted mainly at studio shooters. High ISO and long exposures are not basic features for that demo. You can also fault their camera for not having: the best auto focus, the best shooting speed, the best video capability,  auto-ISO, JPEG in camera - there are many many features that exist in a Canon 1DX that are missing from a Leaf camera - that does not make Canon the better camera, or the quoted statement untrue. I guess there is an undecided argument that when you mention "image quality" - are you talking about image quality under the best circumstances, or the worst circumstances, or some kind of average between the two. To me it makes sense that it is measured under the best circumstances, unless specified otherwise.

"quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry" - Copy from 2010, still as far as image quality alone, I don't think it has become untrue. They are not saying it's better than everyone else, just that it is on the front line with the other "bests".

"unsurpassed 12 f-stops of dynamic range" - As was pointed out here, the original copy was written in 2010 when it was indeed the best dynamic range in the market. Careless copy paste and neglect to effectively review copy before it goes out. I'm pretty sure they didn't release that statement after careful review and with intent to deceive. Still, I guess this is the one thing you can really fault them here.

"the only back with an internal rotating sensor" - I was not aware of other backs with *internal* rotating sensor. I know on cameras like GX680 or RZ67 you can rotate the backs, but what other backs have internal rotation, without using the camera's rotation or taking the back out?

Usage of words like "stunning", "unrivaled", "unsurpassed" - This is a common disease of Israeli marketing. They've latched on the the hyperbole way of creating marketing statements, and it's very hard to convince them that sometimes a reserved statement can make a better impression.




Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: sbernthal on April 16, 2013, 03:53:47 AM
Regarding the DR stuff, Nikon D3X that has been introduced 2008 had DR in excess of 12EV (12.8 at the pixel level), so the Aptus numbers were clearly not best in 2010. But full frame DSLRs are perhaps a different market?!
Leaf did not say *better* than anyone else, they said - "unsurpassed", which means to the best of my knowledge, equal or higher, so Nikon 12EV is equal, therefore not in contradiction to the statement, even under your assumptions.


Ray indicated that he got the mail in question from Leaf marketing 2012-05, so if Leaf claims to have market leading performance that would refer to the late 2012 not 2010.

They claimed market leading image quality, not performance. As I elaborated, image quality can be interpreted as under best circumstances, or worst circumstances, or any combination thereof. If you think that when a camera manufacturer makes a statement regarding image quality, they mean under the highest ISO settings, or some sort of weighted average along all the possible ISO settings, or maybe they are talking about long exposures, that would an argument I would be very interested in reading.


So, I think Ray is absolutely correct in his statement.

Thank you for bolding your statement, but to which of Ray's statements were you referring - he made several. I think all concede that Leaf's statement about Best DR in 2012 was incorrect, and there's a question whether it was negligent or willful. If you were referring to one of the other statements, or all of them, it was unclear to me.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 16, 2013, 04:16:32 AM
Hi,

12.8 EV is quite a bit more than 12 EV.

Image quality is a vague term.

What Ray said was essentially that Leaf may hold a lead in image quality under a very limited set of conditions. Would the statement say that the Aptus has an unsurpassed image quality at minimum ISO in studio conditions I guess that Ray would not object, but my guess is that Ray is interested in long exposures, night exposures and such things.

Best regards
Erik



Performance does not necessarily speed. It means the ability perform. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/performance

Leaf did not say *better* than anyone else, they said - "unsurpassed", which means to the best of my knowledge, equal or higher, so Nikon 12EV is equal, therefore not in contradiction to the statement, even under your assumptions.


They claimed market leading image quality, not performance. As I elaborated, image quality can be interpreted as under best circumstances, or worst circumstances, or any combination thereof. If you think that when a camera manufacturer makes a statement regarding image quality, they mean under the highest ISO settings, or some sort of weighted average along all the possible ISO settings, or maybe they are talking about long exposures, that would an argument I would be very interested in reading.


Thank you for bolding your statement, but to which of Ray's statements were you referring - he made several. I think all concede that Leaf's statement about Best DR in 2012 was incorrect, and there's a question whether it was negligent or willful. If you were referring to one of the other statements, or all of them, it was unclear to me.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: sbernthal on April 16, 2013, 04:23:24 AM
Image quality is a vague term.

That was my entire point.
As a vague term, you can't expect marketing people not to make excessive statements about it.

As far as DR, I missed that part of your original statement. Still DR measurement methods are not something that is clear and known to everyone, and like car companies boasting best gas mileage, you don't know exactly how each company measures it and who has the better real result, or if it can even be quantified into a scalar in a way that is uncontested.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 16, 2013, 05:01:29 AM
Hi,

No, DR is a very technical term. It is the full well capacity divided by readout noise. It is actually specified by the vendor of the image sensor. It is usually expressed in dB , you divide the dB rating by six to get EVs. Camera electronics may/will add some noise to sensor signal.

A photographers interpretation of DR may be a different thing.

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 16, 2013, 05:11:28 AM
Hope your family is well!

Thanks, Doug. All's well now with the family - and expanded! We had a beautiful baby boy in December, our third child and first son. That kept us busy! Then our younger daughter spent a fortnight in hospital in March, with serious pneumonia & infected pleural effusion; for the second week we were ambulanced to a different city with a specialist children's hospital...I was with her 24/7, while my wife stayed home with the baby and our older daughter. She's made a full recovery now. It was quite an ordeal for her...just a completely random thing, as she's never been ill before.


Ray,

It is nice to have you back!

Best regards
Erik


Thank you too Erik - nice to be back!

Cheers,
Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 16, 2013, 06:12:34 AM

Hmmm...I hadn't intended to reignite this debate but others have pitched in...so...

I will take this chance to address you original post:

"The Leaf Aptus-II delivers stunning, film-like quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution"
How is that not true? This is a statement about image quality, not features. Leaf Aptus is targeted mainly at studio shooters. High ISO and long exposures are not basic features for that demo.

To me, a statement as bold as "any capture device available in the industry, regardless of resolution" leaves no wriggle room for exceptions like the ones you gave.
"The industry" refers to the camera industry, not a niche segment like cameras targeted at studio shooters, and "capture" refers to any usage that cameras are commonly put to, which includes shooting at higher ISO and longer exposures.

You can also fault their camera for not having: the best auto focus, the best shooting speed, the best video capability,  auto-ISO, JPEG in camera - there are many many features that exist in a Canon 1DX that are missing from a Leaf camera - that does not make Canon the better camera, or the quoted statement untrue.

I had no complaint about any of those other features, as they were not relevant to image quality.

I guess there is an undecided argument that when you mention "image quality" - are you talking about image quality under the best circumstances, or the worst circumstances, or some kind of average between the two. To me it makes sense that it is measured under the best circumstances, unless specified otherwise.

If the quality can vary by so much depending on the "circumstances", then it is beholden to at least specify what those best circumstances are. I'd also like to see an appraisal of quality/performance for less than ideal circumstances. For example, in the EU, when a car advert flaunts its fuel efficiency performance, the headline "extra-urban" figure is accompanied by a note specifying something like "at sustained 90 kph", and there is also a second, less impressive figure given for "urban cycle" performance, and a third figure, "combined", which is a distance-weighted average of the other two. Maybe we need an EU regulation for cameras/sensors  :o

"quality that rivals any capture device available in the industry" - Copy from 2010, still as far as image quality alone, I don't think it has become untrue. They are not saying it's better than everyone else, just that it is on the front line with the other "bests".

True, "rivals" doesn't necessarily imply "exceeds".

"unsurpassed 12 f-stops of dynamic range" - As was pointed out here, the original copy was written in 2010 when it was indeed the best dynamic range in the market. Careless copy paste and neglect to effectively review copy before it goes out. I'm pretty sure they didn't release that statement after careful review and with intent to deceive. Still, I guess this is the one thing you can really fault them here.

Erik has already covered this - there were other cameras in (and long prior to) 2010 that had surpassed 12 stops of DR.

Actually, I have previously posted here, that where MFD generally has a distinct edge is not necessarily in the quantity of DR (although the new IQ2's seem to be back on top), but rather the quality in S/N terms along the range of stops covered by the DR at base ISO. No-one seems to have picked up on this point...maybe because there is a lack of understanding of noise models.

"the only back with an internal rotating sensor" - I was not aware of other backs with *internal* rotating sensor. I know on cameras like GX680 or RZ67 you can rotate the backs, but what other backs have internal rotation, without using the camera's rotation or taking the back out?

I think you missed my point here. What I said was that Leaf seemed to have forgotten that they themselves had another back with an internal rotating sensor!

Usage of words like "stunning", "unrivaled", "unsurpassed" - This is a common disease of Israeli marketing. They've latched on the the hyperbole way of creating marketing statements, and it's very hard to convince them that sometimes a reserved statement can make a better impression.

Can't comment on Israeli product marketing...but for a small country, they do have an admirable indigenous entrepreneurial tech sector, which produces such products to market!

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 16, 2013, 06:26:09 AM
Hi,

There is another small country having an admirable indigenous entrepreneurial tech sector, which produces such products to market, with Copenhagen as capital. ;-)

Best regards
Erik


Can't comment on Israeli product marketing...but for a small country, they do have an admirable indigenous entrepreneurial tech sector, which produces such products to market!

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 16, 2013, 06:49:05 AM
Absolutely! My sister lives there (Århus).

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 16, 2013, 11:48:01 PM
Ray,

You may elaborate a bit on this statement. My understanding is that as long as we expose to the right at base ISO we use the full dynamic range of the sensor, and in that situation it is probable that a larger sensor collects more photons and thus reducing shot noise, resulting in smoother highlights and mid tones. What could counter act this would be if the larger sensor has less electron storage capacity than the smaller sensor.

CMOS sensors similar to Exmor get their improved DR mostly from reducing readout noise, thus having cleaner darks.

So larger sensors would have better highlights and midtones unless they would underexpose by intention, for instance to avoid clipping of cloud detail.

Something I missed?

Best regards
Erik


Actually, I have previously posted here, that where MFD generally has a distinct edge is not necessarily in the quantity of DR (although the new IQ2's seem to be back on top), but rather the quality in S/N terms along the range of stops covered by the DR at base ISO. No-one seems to have picked up on this point...maybe because there is a lack of understanding of noise models.


Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 19, 2013, 06:11:16 PM
Erik,

No, you didn't miss anything - you have neatly described some of what I was referring to. What goes on in the shadows is also interesting. There is a real difference between the appearance of shadow detail taken by high-readout noise (MFD) and low-readout noise (small format CMOS) cameras, even when the signal is adjusted to give the pixels the same average signal to noise.

But there was a thread some months back (one of the endless MFD vs. D800 ones) where the D800 camp were saying "it's better because it has quantifiably greater DR" and the MFD camp (including the dealers here) were saying "nonsense, we get more detail out of the shadows than the D800 can". I offered an assessment arising from signal-to-noise curve modelling I had done, which suggested that these seemingly irreconcilable positions are reconcilable, but it seemed to be ignored. Positions were too entrenched to pay attention to it, perhaps.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: sbernthal on April 20, 2013, 03:35:43 AM
If the quality can vary by so much depending on the "circumstances", then it is beholden to at least specify what those best circumstances are. I'd also like to see an appraisal of quality/performance for less than ideal circumstances. For example, in the EU, when a car advert flaunts its fuel efficiency performance, the headline "extra-urban" figure is accompanied by a note specifying something like "at sustained 90 kph", and there is also a second, less impressive figure given for "urban cycle" performance, and a third figure, "combined", which is a distance-weighted average of the other two. Maybe we need an EU regulation for cameras/sensors  :o

Image quality is always depending on circumstances - for all digital cameras, not uniquely for Leaf.
My point was, when a camera company makes a statement to the "image quality" of their product, how does the reasonable reader interpret it?
Do they think they camera company is talking about high ISO results? Or about long exposures?
My understanding is that those two conditions are specific cases.

When a camera company wants to refer to high ISO performance, or to long exposure performance, they say so using the aforementioned terms.
When they say just "image quality", IMO they always mean performance under the best conditions.
I think this is the way consumers interpret it, and this is the way the camera manufacturers mean it, and that it applies in almost all cases.
You would like them to say "image quality under the best conditions", but I don't think that is a realistic expectation.

As for car manufacturers, I don't know the EU regulations on publishing gas mileage, but it is well known that "lab results" that the company publishes, are always quite different that "actual test results" that you can find in independent review websites. I agree that any marketing claim that can be objectively verified and standardized, should be enforced by law, but to the best of my knowledge, even in critical industries like food and drugs, the regulation is far from 100% effective.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on April 20, 2013, 04:45:55 PM
Erik,

No, you didn't miss anything - you have neatly described some of what I was referring to. What goes on in the shadows is also interesting. There is a real difference between the appearance of shadow detail taken by high-readout noise (MFD) and low-readout noise (small format CMOS) cameras, even when the signal is adjusted to give the pixels the same average signal to noise.

But there was a thread some months back (one of the endless MFD vs. D800 ones) where the D800 camp were saying "it's better because it has quantifiably greater DR" and the MFD camp (including the dealers here) were saying "nonsense, we get more detail out of the shadows than the D800 can". I offered an assessment arising from signal-to-noise curve modelling I had done, which suggested that these seemingly irreconcilable positions are reconcilable, but it seemed to be ignored. Positions were too entrenched to pay attention to it, perhaps.

Ray

An example of what you can get out of the shadows with the D800:

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8105/8633809552_a0a67ee815_c.jpg)

Left side is uncorrected default, right side is the same file corrected in Adobe Camera Raw.
Shadow detail is exceptional and I have yet to se it matched by anything else other than black and white film using a 8 dip water bath process.
that takes about 30 minutes before getting the film into the fixer.

Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: larkis on April 21, 2013, 12:34:55 AM
Could you show a 1:1 of that without any additional noise reduction besides the default. I'm actually interested in the camera as an additional body to what I already have (backup).
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 06:35:28 AM
Fred,

Quote from: FredBGG
An example of what you can get out of the shadows with the D800

The scope for adjustment is impressive, but is it not also academic? After all, no competent photographer would have shot your first, grossly under-exposed image. Had the same image been shot exposed to the right, push of shadows, if required at all, would have been marginal.

Please can you provide a real-world example where push of such magnitude was warranted?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: eronald on April 21, 2013, 08:38:09 AM
Fred,

The scope for adjustment is impressive, but is it not also academic? After all, no competent photographer would have shot your first, grossly under-exposed image. Had the same image been shot exposed to the right, push of shadows, if required at all, would have been marginal.

Please can you provide a real-world example where push of such magnitude was warranted?

This is exactly the attitude which is wrecking the MF cameras for many of us. And ultimately for everybody as to produce perfect shots @ 1600 with very red light you need to be able to produce good ones @ 12800 in bluish light. Although I guess you could also argue that every competent photographer should be able to light up any scene with daylight color temperature like the cine crowd.

Edmund
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 09:25:04 AM
Edmund,

Quote from: eronald
This is exactly the attitude which is wrecking the MF cameras for many of us.

I'm not sure if the above sentence refers to my "attitude" or to Fred's. Please can you confirm?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: eronald on April 21, 2013, 09:49:19 AM
Apologies, not your attitude, just your technically ill-advised position. You are like a car critic who says that  a "truck doesn't need a big engine "because it is a truck and doesn't need to do more than 55MPh on the freeway", and who then acts surprised when the same truck takes ages to move away from a light, and can't go over a mountain pass.

There are a bunch of technical reasons why DR and higher ISO is useful in camera electronics. One is that you lose a lot of DR in compensating for white balance. Another, closely linked, is that spare DR and ISO gives you the license to use more orthogonal color filters in the CFA, which translates into better color separation and more beautiful user color - which in fact is the reason why even an antique MF back will demolish a dSLR in file quality. Then of course is the fact that photographers will be able to use fewer Watts of lighting, which translates to less food for the assistants who carry such things, and lower rental fees. Oh, by the way, in many MF backs there is no "electronic"  ISO above 50 or 100, the 200, 400 and 800 settings are all done by software and DR (Although some P1 backs have hardware binning, that's a different game). The high ISO on MF backs are thus often just called ISO for the convenience of our friends in marketing, the same ones who insist whisky tastes better when diluted by water.  SLRs on the other hand often do have signal amps and can really go up to 400 or so before they need to invoke pure DR.  Now that must be a terrible thing to know, wrecks your life, don't it?

On a related note, the Nikon D800 really is in many ways is a breakthrough design, like the Canon 1Ds in its time. As a camera, I don't like it, it is a bit too plasticky, but the sensor is a game changer, in density and in flexibility, and some of us are still hoping the MF guys will finally band together and commission a decent sensor from Sony. Either they do something like that or they will just fade away, $40K backs and all. I have a $50 or something Nikon 50mm/1.8 which cost me about as much as a Hasselblad lenscap, and which feels like a cardboard pinhole lens, but which just keeps making beautiful pictures with decent bokeh - I've compared it to every 50 on the market including Zeiss at 20x the price and it compares well. The Canon 50/1.8 I have mounted on an old 400D does almost as well. A good design is a good design regardless of the end-user price, and the label; the SLR guys may make cheap cameras but they spend a fortune in engineer hours on *design* including AF, optics and sensors.

Edmund

Edmund,

I'm not sure if the above sentence refers to my "attitude" or to Fred's. Please can you confirm?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 12:02:02 PM
Edmund,

Thank you for clarifying.

Quote from: eronald
...not your attitude, just your technically ill-advised position.

Quote from: eronald
Oh, by the way...Now that must be a terrible thing to know, wrecks your life, don't it?

I think you may be jumping to conclusions. You apparently consider that I have an axe to grind with respect to the D800/E specifically, and DSLRs generally. If so then you are mistaken.

I welcome all the dynamic range I can get. However, no one I know deliberately shoots images grossly under-exposed and then pushes the file to the extent indicated in Fred's post. If doing so is useful for some then it is news to me, hence my question to Fred.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Martin Ranger on April 21, 2013, 12:32:37 PM
However, no one I know deliberately shoots images grossly under-exposed and then pushes the file to the extent indicated in Fred's post. If doing so is useful for some then it is news to me, hence my question to Fred.

Rob,
you are probably right: nobody deliberately underexposes the entire image (although who knows, it might be an arty thing). But some parts of images might be underexposed (deliberately or not) in order to avoid blowing out highlights in other parts. In those cases it is nice to be able to push the dark parts.

Martin
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 01:42:22 PM
Martin,

Quote from: Martin Ranger
...some parts of images might be underexposed (deliberately or not) in order to avoid blowing out highlights in other parts. In those cases it is nice to be able to push the dark parts.

I agree fully.

The cameras under discussion offer far from modest dynamic range. One represents the state of the art. Therefore, the requirement to push presumably already is low. Consequently, it is the practical usefulness of the magnitude of push demonstrated by Fred that I enquire about.

If Fred or anyone else can provide a real-world example demonstrating the requirement to push to such an extent then I would be interested to learn of it. If they cannot, then does that not tell its own story?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Martin Ranger on April 21, 2013, 02:04:19 PM
If Fred or anyone else can provide a real-world example demonstrating the requirement to push to such an extent then I would be interested to learn of it. If they cannot, then does that not tell its own story?

Rob,
one of the things I shoot is charreadas (Mexican rodeos). There you have a combination of extremely bright sunlight, light sand in the arena, white shirts/dresses, and faces obscured by the shadow of enormously large hats. Being able to lift the faces a bit rather than having to blow out significant parts of the image is very nice. Below is an example (where in fact the highlights are blown).
More generally I would think that any time you have strong sunlight (say Southern California) it is quite common to get situations where the ability to pull out the shadows is extremely useful.

Martin

(http://martinrangerimages.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/120520134324_02_b.jpg)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
Thank you Martin. :)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: eronald on April 21, 2013, 02:53:31 PM
AreBee,

 I don't think you have an axe to grind, and frankly I don't care at all about the D800, as I didn't buy one. I think you genuinely believe this degree of DR is not of practical relevance; aside from the fact that one could do one-shot HDR, I am pointing out that it IS relevant because in fact pushed DR is what allows modern digital backs to simulate ISO higher than 100 and to compensate for the channel disparities inherent in unbalanced lighting eg. to avoid a noisy blue channel with Tungsten lighting. So in fact if you are using a P45 in tungsten lighting @ ISO 400, the back itself has a native ISO of something like 50 at most, so you are pushing from 50 to 100 to 200 to 400 -3 stops- and then adding about 1 stop for the white balance so in fact your have pushed the thing by 4 stops; if on top of this you didn't expose to the right @400 you may be pushing your exposure by 5 stops - which you just said "no one deliberately" will do.

 Let me summarize: EVERY PHOTOGRAPHER USING ISO 400 WITH A NON-BINNING BACK UNDER TUNGSTEN IS PUSHING BY 5 STOPS.

 Now get someone with credentials which you respect to confirm what I just wrote above. If they say differently I will thank them for improving my education, if they confirm, you can send me a Christmas card :)

Edmund

Edmund,

Thank you for clarifying.

I think you may be jumping to conclusions. You apparently consider that I have an axe to grind with respect to the D800/E specifically, and DSLRs generally. If so then you are mistaken.

I welcome all the dynamic range I can get. However, no one I know deliberately shoots images grossly under-exposed and then pushes the file to the extent indicated in Fred's post. If doing so is useful for some then it is news to me, hence my question to Fred.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 21, 2013, 03:42:40 PM
Hi,

Both high ISO performance and tolerance to underexposure are aspects of DR. A system with high DR will also have a good high ISO performance and it will be able to to do the FredBG trick. So underexposing an image and pushing shadow detail is a good way to demonstrate DR.

It is possible to achieve good ISO performance with little DR, if the sensor is clean but readout circuitry is weak using variable pre amplification, that is pretty much what Canon does.

I have recently made a posting where I indicated that DR was overemphasised. I still think it is, but I found several images with DR in the 11-13 EV range. If you include setting sun, for instance and want decent foreground drawing you need all the DR you can get. The reason is that you need to underexpose intentionally to minimize clipping on the highlights. It is not underexposure, technically I would say it is correct ETTR.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=76997.0

Best regards
Erik



I welcome all the dynamic range I can get. However, no one I know deliberately shoots images grossly under-exposed and then pushes the file to the extent indicated in Fred's post. If doing so is useful for some then it is news to me, hence my question to Fred.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on April 21, 2013, 04:09:11 PM
Fred,

The scope for adjustment is impressive, but is it not also academic? After all, no competent photographer would have shot your first, grossly under-exposed image. Had the same image been shot exposed to the right, push of shadows, if required at all, would have been marginal.

Please can you provide a real-world example where push of such magnitude was warranted?

While the example I posted is very extreeme it is a demonstration of the capability of the camera. In all situations where shadows are pushed a little or a fair bit there is some quality loss compared to exposing the shadows more. What is importasnt with the example I posted is that even in exteeme cases the results are still very good. This meands that in more commomn practial cases the quality will be even higher.

There are endless exampekls in the real world where this is an enourmous advantage. If this were not the case Kodak would not have strived for years to increase dynamic range of negative film.

A few examples. Fashion runway. Black model wearing white top and black skirt or panrs with dark, but embroiderted boots. Light on the runway is prety much more from above.

Fashion with two models in the sun. One blond model and one model with jet black hair. L'oreal is the suject of the editorial.
Next shot. One model leaning against a white car with the other model inside the car.

Black vocanic rock and vitage white car.

Black vocanic cliffs soaked in water with a nude beauty shot. Jet black hair.

I do a lot of high key lighting with lekos and fresnel spots in studio and on location.
Deep moody shadows. The way the detail falls off into the shadows makes quite a difference.

The most important thing I see in the test I posted is that despite lifing the shadows many stops there is still absolute black in the final image.
This is because there is information deep into the blacks.

Another reson why dynamic range and high quantization (lots of steps... real ones, not just the extent of the file format) is the whole reproduction process. If one looks at what the independant channels of data used to make offset printing plates they are very adjusted. If you stay with modest dynamic range and quantization you end up with banding issues and that requires the offset printer to add some noise to control this.
The cleaner and more robust the file is the better off you are.

If we also add on top of that the dodging and burning required in fashion and beauty retouching the more you start with the better.
This is particularly imposrtant for skin as the tones are subtle and we are wired to read skin tones more than other things.

Now I'm not saying that MFD is not capable of doing a very good job at this, but it is not quite as good as the D800 and D600.
Very close, but the important thing is that while a few years ago 35mm DSLRs lagged behind in this area they are not leading.
It's not nesccessary to invest $20-50,000 anymore to obtain high dynamic range that used to be unique to MFD.

It will be interesting to see how the newer sensor in the IQ260 performs in this area, not that the IQ160 was a slouch at all.

Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 05:42:24 PM
Edmund,

Quote from: eronald
I think you genuinely believe this degree of DR is not of practical relevance; aside from the fact that one could do one-shot HDR, I am pointing out that it IS relevant because in fact pushed DR is what allows modern digital backs to simulate ISO higher than 100...

Relax. Your credentials are safe. I simply was not aware of this information. Thank you for helping me to understand.

Erik,

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I have recently made a posting where I indicated that DR was overemphasised. I still think it is, but I found several images with DR in the 11-13 EV range. If you include setting sun, for instance and want decent foreground drawing you need all the DR you can get. The reason is that you need to underexpose intentionally to minimize clipping on the highlights. It is not underexposure, technically I would say it is correct ETTR.

Thank you for the link. I have previously read the thread. :)

Fred,

Quote from: FredBGG
There are endless exampekls in the real world where this is an enourmous advantage. If this were not the case Kodak would not have strived for years to increase dynamic range of negative film.

I do not doubt it. However, my original post did not refer to film, but to a state of the art digital sensor.

I appreciate that the dynamic range of some compositions will exceed the latitude of the sensor. What I queried was the practical usefulness of having such scope for adjustment in a sensor that natively has the ability to capture significant dynamic range. However...

Quote from: FredBGG
What is importasnt with the example I posted is that even in exteeme cases the results are still very good. This meands that in more commomn practial cases the quality will be even higher.

This makes sense. :) Thank you.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 21, 2013, 05:45:05 PM
However, no one I know deliberately shoots images grossly under-exposed and then pushes the file to the extent indicated in Fred's post. If doing so is useful for some then it is news to me, hence my question to Fred.

Deliberately grossly underexposing and pushing is more common than you think: it is the definition of high-ISO shooting with any camera with a flat readnoise-vs-ISO curve. That includes all MFD cameras, and nearly all recent Sony-sensored CMOS cameras, like the D800 itself.

So unless Nikon are screwing around with the RAW data (and they admittedly have poor form in that regard - messing up the stats by subtracting the bias, and median-filtering hot pixels in long exposures), then Fred's photo above - let's say it was at ISO 100 and 5 stops underexposed - would give virtually the exact same RAW file if it were a correctly exposed ISO 3200 shot.

A system with high DR will also have a good high ISO performance and it will be able to to do the FredBG trick.

That is true of most cameras one encounters these days, yet it is not really correct to make it a general rule.
High DR can result from either large full well capacity or low readout noise. In the latter case, the camera will also be particularly good for high ISO. But in the former case, it won't...the CCDs in MFD systems are good examples of this.

So it is better not to explicitly couple DR with high ISO ability: because there are high-DR cameras (like the Dalsa-sensored MFD ones at their native pixel sizes) that are disappointing when it comes to high ISO.

It is possible to achieve good ISO performance with little DR, if the sensor is clean but readout circuitry is weak using variable pre amplification, that is pretty much what Canon does.

Exactly. And that's another reason why it is better not to explicitly couple DR with high ISO ability: because there are high-ISO cameras that are disappointing when it comes to high DR.

The perfect sensor would have both large full well capacity and low readout noise. Sony and Fuji are getting close with their latest CMOS APS/FF sensors, although the smallish pixel sizes favoured these days limit how large the full well capacity can get.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: AreBee on April 21, 2013, 05:56:18 PM
Ray,

Quote from: ondebanks
Deliberately grossly underexposing and pushing is more common than you think: it is the definition of high-ISO shooting with any camera with a flat readnoise-vs-ISO curve.

Yes, I can see now that I was ignorant of the way in which cameras return their high ISO performance. Thank you for clarifying. :)
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 21, 2013, 05:59:26 PM
Ray,

Yes, I can see now that I was ignorant of the way in which cameras return their high ISO performance. Thank you for clarifying. :)

You're very welcome...glad that my explanation helped.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 21, 2013, 11:51:49 PM
Ray,

You are of course right. I forgot that MFD-s tend to have low base ISO. My reasoning was that if we ETTR the dynamic range will be fully utilized. So if we have large dynamic range we can underexpose a number of steps. But if a sensor has low base ISO, like 50 and we push three stops we still just get 400 ISO with a three exposure push.

One of the great mysteries with MF in my view is the low base ISO, but I guess things add up. No microlenses, perhaps more othogonal CGAs? Pixel size should be ISO neutral, as FWC is proportional to pixel area, but so is the number of incident photons.

Learning in small bits...

Best regards
Erik


That is true of most cameras one encounters these days, yet it is not really correct to make it a general rule.
High DR can result from either large full well capacity or low readout noise. In the latter case, the camera will also be particularly good for high ISO. But in the former case, it won't...the CCDs in MFD systems are good examples of this.

Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 22, 2013, 06:02:05 AM
One of the great mysteries with MF in my view is the low base ISO, but I guess things add up. No microlenses, perhaps more othogonal CGAs? Pixel size should be ISO neutral, as FWC is proportional to pixel area, but so is the number of incident photons.

"No microlenses, perhaps more othogonal CGAs" - together these add up to lower net quantum efficiency. Yes, that's a factor alright. One notices that the relatively few MFD cameras/backs with microlensed sensors have ~1 stop higher base ISO than their stablemates of the same pixel tech and size but without microlenses. P21+ vs P20+ and P25+; P30+ vs P45+; Hassy 31 vs 39 MP & 40 vs 50 MP...to take a few examples.

"Pixel size should be ISO neutral, as FWC is proportional to pixel area" - that's true in general, but don't forget the 3rd dimension - physical pixel junction depth into the wafer - and the "4th dimension" - the energy barrier set by the anode voltages, which control how densely one can pack the photo-electrons and still hold them in the "energy well". Like charges repel each other of course, so if you want to squeeze tens of thousands of negative electrons into a smaller volume, you need a stronger positive anode voltage centred on the pixel to overcome that repulsion.

So by exploiting at least one of these additional dimensions (I honestly have not checked which), Dalsa have often delivered greater FWCs for a given pixel area than Kodak. The other factor is that Kodak have pretty consistently had chips with higher spectral transmission efficiency than Dalsa. So the Kodaks have often had smaller pixel capacities AND they filled them at a faster rate: two things which raise the base ISO. This explains why hardly any Kodak-based MFD unit has had a base ISO of 25***, but several Dalsa ones have had...and when the Dalsa ones have started at ISO 50 or 80, the equivalent Kodak ones have started at ISO 100. 

Ray

***  AFAIK, only two Kodak-based MFD units have had a base ISO of 25: the Sinarbacks 44M and 54M. But I've never understood how, since all the other MFD manufacturers using these same two sensors have set their base ISO to 50 or even 100. Perhaps as tethered backs aimed at studio use, Sinar were setting them up for more extreme ETTR than would be safe under outdoor light conditions.
This highlights another factor which muddies the waters: manufacturers have some leeway to choose what they like for base ISO. Thus, to take a recent example, Phase One set the Dalsa 40MP sensor to ISO 50 in the P40+, while Leaf set it to ISO 80 in the Aptus-II 8. There can even be inconsistency for the same manufacturer: Leaf then went on to set the same sensor back to ISO 50 in the Credo 40. So perhaps one shouldn't read too much into the base ISO value, since deliberate variations of up to 1-stop for the same sensor are common.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 22, 2013, 07:02:49 AM
"Pixel size should be ISO neutral, as FWC is proportional to pixel area" - that's true in general, but don't forget the 3rd dimension - physical pixel junction depth into the wafer - and the "4th dimension" - the energy barrier set by the anode voltages, which control how densely one can pack the photo-electrons and still hold them in the "energy well".
....So by exploiting at least one of these additional dimensions (I honestly have not checked which), Dalsa have often delivered greater FWCs for a given pixel area than Kodak. 

And doh! - how could I have forgotten? - another likely reason for Kodak's smaller FWCs is that they (always?) have stronger anti-blooming than Dalsa, so they probably devote more pixel area to the overflow drain.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 22, 2013, 10:47:04 AM
I was looking at the sensor of my Aptus II-8 today, you can see the centre fold of the two joined sensors quite clearly. Serious question, why aren't they using a couple of D800 sensors joined together? The software can't be that hard if a small company like Leaf can do it (not knocking their achievement), it would give incredible image quality for significantly less cost would it not? Oh and allow stuff like real live view and incredible high iso. Please pardon me if the question is naive.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ced on April 22, 2013, 11:36:58 AM
And what shall they stick it together with superglue??
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on April 22, 2013, 11:44:39 AM
Doug has informed me I was mistaken, the sensor in my back is not a dual co-joined sensor such as was in some backs, not sure what I'm seeing, there is a definite horizontal line running down the middle but apparently it's not a join. There were some backs using this method however were there not historians?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 22, 2013, 12:15:36 PM
Joining sensors would be wonderful in theory, but you would not be able to get active pixel butted right up against active pixel. There is always a perimeter of dummy and black reference pixels, and usually a lot of output pins...all these would get in the way, so every image would have a thick dark line down the middle. Research astronomers do put up with this in their mosaic-cams, but terrestrial photographers would not.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 22, 2013, 12:29:23 PM
Hi,

I have considered the third dimension but noted that FWCs don't differ a lot between pixels of comparable sizes, so assumed that the third dimension is quite similar for all. My knowledge is not in microelectronics, just that I am interested.

It's nice to hear some good explanations from someone having insight. I learn a lot!

Best regards
Erik


"No microlenses, perhaps more othogonal CGAs" - together these add up to lower net quantum efficiency. Yes, that's a factor alright. One notices that the relatively few MFD cameras/backs with microlensed sensors have ~1 stop higher base ISO than their stablemates of the same pixel tech and size but without microlenses. P21+ vs P20+ and P25+; P30+ vs P45+; Hassy 31 vs 39 MP & 40 vs 50 MP...to take a few examples.

"Pixel size should be ISO neutral, as FWC is proportional to pixel area" - that's true in general, but don't forget the 3rd dimension - physical pixel junction depth into the wafer - and the "4th dimension" - the energy barrier set by the anode voltages, which control how densely one can pack the photo-electrons and still hold them in the "energy well". Like charges repel each other of course, so if you want to squeeze tens of thousands of negative electrons into a smaller volume, you need a stronger positive anode voltage centred on the pixel to overcome that repulsion.

So by exploiting at least one of these additional dimensions (I honestly have not checked which), Dalsa have often delivered greater FWCs for a given pixel area than Kodak. The other factor is that Kodak have pretty consistently had chips with higher spectral transmission efficiency than Dalsa. So the Kodaks have often had smaller pixel capacities AND they filled them at a faster rate: two things which raise the base ISO. This explains why hardly any Kodak-based MFD unit has had a base ISO of 25***, but several Dalsa ones have had...and when the Dalsa ones have started at ISO 50 or 80, the equivalent Kodak ones have started at ISO 100. 

Ray

***  AFAIK, only two Kodak-based MFD units have had a base ISO of 25: the Sinarbacks 44M and 54M. But I've never understood how, since all the other MFD manufacturers using these same two sensors have set their base ISO to 50 or even 100. Perhaps as tethered backs aimed at studio use, Sinar were setting them up for more extreme ETTR than would be safe under outdoor light conditions.
This highlights another factor which muddies the waters: manufacturers have some leeway to choose what they like for base ISO. Thus, to take a recent example, Phase One set the Dalsa 40MP sensor to ISO 50 in the P40+, while Leaf set it to ISO 80 in the Aptus-II 8. There can even be inconsistency for the same manufacturer: Leaf then went on to set the same sensor back to ISO 50 in the Credo 40. So perhaps one shouldn't read too much into the base ISO value, since deliberate variations of up to 1-stop for the same sensor are common.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 22, 2013, 12:32:37 PM
Hi,

Sensors can be stitched on wafer in manufacture, and indeed it is my understanding that full frame sensors use one dimentional stitching. An MF sensor woud require multidimensional stitching.

Best regards
Erik

Joining sensors would be wonderful in theory, but you would not be able to get active pixel butted right up against active pixel. There is always a perimeter of dummy and black reference pixels, and usually a lot of output pins...all these would get in the way, so every image would have a thick dark line down the middle. Research astronomers do put up with this in their mosaic-cams, but terrestrial photographers would not.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims? (So what advantage may Lefa have?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 22, 2013, 12:41:05 PM
Hi,

We have many happy MF owners on this forums. Obviously MF sensors would probably have some advantages. I have not seen so many Apples to Apples comparisons between sensors of different size.

Personally, I think that we have some advantage in higher photon count at base ISO, thus having better shot noise. Also I can presume that CGA may be more optimized for color separation than for high ISO. That may give MF an advantage.

Regarding color, I would ask if there would be a major difference in color if we made a comparison with white balance set on a gray card and if we used color profiles genareted by the same software, like Xrite Color Checker Passport or Adobe DNG profile editor?

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: Doug Peterson on April 22, 2013, 12:46:23 PM
Doug has informed me I was mistaken, the sensor in my back is not a dual co-joined sensor such as was in some backs, not sure what I'm seeing, there is a definite horizontal line running down the middle but apparently it's not a join. There were some backs using this method however were there not historians?

I guess it's a matter of semantics what you call it (e.g. "stitch" vs "etch" vs "segmented").

Most modern medium format CCDs have more than one read out area, which requires a read-out channel transit the sensor, which creates a visual line when you hold the sensor at an angle to direct light. They are exposed on a single piece of silicon however, and are not "joined" in the sense that they do not create sensors and then glue them together. Such an approach would be extremely hard to use in made-for-standard-photographic-applications camera since, as pointed out above you'd have to have butt them together within one pixel (e.g. 6 microns) apart and then calibrate them to produce nearly identical read-outs across a huge spectrum of possible exposures.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on April 22, 2013, 12:53:04 PM
Doug has informed me I was mistaken, the sensor in my back is not a dual co-joined sensor such as was in some backs, not sure what I'm seeing, there is a definite horizontal line running down the middle but apparently it's not a join. There were some backs using this method however were there not historians?

The sensor is not made out of two chips physically joined together, however the chip is manufactured one area at a time due to the maximum size
that can be made at on time by the stepper.The chip is moved between tiles. This is why they are visable to the naked eye when looking at the sensor.
Calibration has to be performed to not make the bounderies visable in final images. Not all copies of sensors will have the same precision. It is very complicated to reposition the chip between tiles when tollerences are so infinately small.

(http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/cache/leaf_aptus_ii_12_80_megapixel_sensor_digital_back_620x553.jpg)

many people have had issues with these bouderies showing up. Both calibration and software tricks help resolve the issue.
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on April 22, 2013, 01:06:33 PM
I guess it's a matter of semantics what you call it (e.g. "stitch" vs "etch" vs "segmented").

Most modern medium format CCDs have more than one read out area, which requires a read-out channel transit the sensor, which creates a visual line when you hold the sensor at an angle to direct light. They are laser etched out of a single piece of silicon however, and are not "joined" in the sense that they do not create sensors and then glue them together. Such an approach would be extremely hard to use in made-for-standard-photographic-applications camera since, as pointed out above you'd have to have butt them together within one pixel (e.g. 6 microns) apart and then calibrate them to produce nearly identical read-outs across a huge spectrum of possible exposures.

Are CCDs made by etching with a laser?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 22, 2013, 03:38:27 PM
Not as far as I know. Chips are normally made in a photolitographic processs.

Best regards
Erik

Are CCDs made by etching with a laser?
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: ondebanks on April 22, 2013, 08:11:38 PM
(http://www.pixiq.com/sites/default/files/cache/leaf_aptus_ii_12_80_megapixel_sensor_digital_back_620x553.jpg)


What back is that, Fred? Looks like a 60 or 80 MP full 645 frame?

With this discussion of multiple stepper blocks laid down on a single MFD chip, I think we strayed away from Ben's question, which was about "using a couple of D800 sensors joined together". A system which integrates multiple self-contained sensors could be done, but not gaplessly, for the reason I gave above.

However, such an array of sensors might be good for stitching panos in a very short time, or simulating much larger formats - two slightly displaced shots would be all you need to fill in the gaps. Think of Fotodiox's RhinoCam concept, with not one NEX camera, but several NEX sensors (or D800 sensors) side by side.

Ray
Title: Re: Leaf's advertising - why the false claims?
Post by: FredBGG on April 23, 2013, 03:15:57 AM
Not as far as I know. Chips are normally made in a photolitographic processs.

Best regards
Erik


Like this:

http://youtu.be/bqJksXwrx7U (http://youtu.be/bqJksXwrx7U)

maybe lasers are used to etch new sensors, but it's the first time i've heard of it.
Maybe Doug could explain it in more detail.