Leaf AFi-10 in action

[Frank Doorhof]

For people interested in one of the most advanced digital cameras in my opinion (I just love the big sensor) I have done a small review on my blog, www.doorhof.nl/blog

I have already shot several times with the AFi-10 during development and last wednesday and thursday we did small workshops in Denmark for C/AV here are a few samples with a 100% crop. The 100% crop is not sharpened.
Remember it's still a BETA sample, so the final version can only be better.


1.

[geesbert]

I just don't get it with 2:3 the aspect ratio of the afi10. with 35mm i am cropping nearly everything that will end up in a commercial print to a shorter rectangle, as nearly everyone does. what's the point?

[Frank Doorhof]

Well you have MORE than enough room to crop.
But it's nice to have the option to shoot wider.
I really like it, and in the start I thought about it and did not think I would like it, the reality is that there is so much room that you can crop without loosing detail or loosing your DOF control.
The sensor is full 645 format.

And you can always set it to 4:3 for an auto crop.

[paulmoorestudio]

Well you have MORE than enough room to crop.
But it's nice to have the option to shoot wider.
I really like it, and in the start I thought about it and did not think I would like it, the reality is that there is so much room that you can crop without loosing detail or loosing your DOF control.
The sensor is full 645 format.

And you can always set it to 4:3 for an auto crop.

sorry, I don't think it is a full 645 sensor.. or it would have that proportion.. 6:4.5  -  it has 56x36.. 3:2.. not full.
lets not get into the habit of calling things full when they aren't, hassy went down that road and it is just confusing.

[rethmeier]

Wider than the P65 and that a "full" sensor!

[Frank Doorhof]

I forgot to mention Full size (REAL full size by the way) on the LONG side.
It still crops at the top.
Sorry if it was misunderstood.

[yaya]

I just don't get it with 2:3 the aspect ratio of the afi10. with 35mm i am cropping nearly everything that will end up in a commercial print to a shorter rectangle, as nearly everyone does. what's the point?

Same back on a Cambo RS/ 35mm Digitar/ 2 horizontals stitched in CS4:

[attachment=9530:Picture_10.jpg]

[Graham Mitchell]

I always assumed this back was aimed at landscape shooters who like the longer ratio.

Nice image by the way, Frank.

[Frank Doorhof]

Well it can be used for everything of course.
There are millions of photographers shooting with 35mm and doing fashion/glamour/architecture and whatever.
There are also alot of photographers shooting square and 4:3.

It all depends on knowing what you want and working with that.
When you shoot square you will adjust your composition to it.
Same with 3:2

For our print sizes (A4 etc) a 3:2 sensor makes more sense than a 4:3 actually.

For me personal I love the option of HAVING the 3:2 option and the large sensor, when I mount this on my RZ67ProII (hope to test that in the future) I think it will be absolutly stunning.

[Christopher]

Well it can be used for everything of course.
There are millions of photographers shooting with 35mm and doing fashion/glamour/architecture and whatever.
There are also alot of photographers shooting square and 4:3.

It all depends on knowing what you want and working with that.
When you shoot square you will adjust your composition to it.
Same with 3:2

For our print sizes (A4 etc) a 3:2 sensor makes more sense than a 4:3 actually.

For me personal I love the option of HAVING the 3:2 option and the large sensor, when I mount this on my RZ67ProII (hope to test that in the future) I think it will be absolutly stunning.

What I would be more interested in is high ISO performance or let's better say ISO 400 and 800. I know that both the AFi-10 and P65 are brilliant at ISO 50 or 100, but for me that isn't really interesting.   So any new on that ? What I have seen so far from both backs was horrible and a lot worse than current backs, but again both companies blame it on pre-production models. So when will we finally see some ISO performance of real world images ?

[BJNY]

Thank you, Frank for the samples.

First time I've seen defined eyebrows at full-length scale.

[H1/A75 Guy]

The 100% crop is not sharpened.

Frank,

I understand the 100% crop is not sharpened.
Does that also mean the full image is not sharpened?
Translation: Did you do any sharpening on the full image before posting the 100% crop that was not sharpened?

Thanks,
David

[thsinar]

Thanks too Frank, and nice shots.

Thierry

For people interested in one of the most advanced digital cameras in my opinion (I just love the big sensor) I have done a small review on my blog, www.doorhof.nl/blog

[Frank Doorhof]

about high ISO
To do a good comparison one should also downscale the mf file to the same resolution as the dslr you're comparing with you will see that the difference is much less than when comparing both on 1:1.

I have used my Aptus on 400 a few times and on prints the noise is reasonably low. A2 prints.

The small picture is sharpenend for the net.

[Dustbak]

I disagree since I don't use the MFDB to downscale it to the size of the DSLR. The purpose of that is to be able to use it at full size and having to downsize it before it gets acceptable is kind of loosing the point of having big files. OTOH, the strength of MFDB is mainly in low ISO. For high(er) ISO I would never consider MFDB but take DSLR (even when  need to upsize).

Anyway, a 100% view of how high ISO performs is sufficient to see whether that performance is acceptable for eaches taste. Some people can stand it more than others. Even than performance varies with circumstances so it would be only an indication.

[Christopher]

I disagree since I don't use the MFDB to downscale it to the size of the DSLR. The purpose of that is to be able to use it at full size and having to downsize it before it gets acceptable is kind of loosing the point of having big files. OTOH, the strength of MFDB is mainly in low ISO. For high(er) ISO I would never consider MFDB but take DSLR (even when  need to upsize).

Anyway, a 100% view of how high ISO performs is sufficient to see whether that performance is acceptable for eaches taste. Some people can stand it more than others. Even than performance varies with circumstances so it would be only an indication.

I'm not expecting noise free ISO 400 but ISO 200 and 400 should be better or at least equal on these newer backs than on older back, if that wasn't achieved than in my eyes leaf and Phase have failed.  (Again what I have seen so far is that even underexposed by one stop at ISO 200 both backs (Afi-10 and P65) were not really usable. Way to noise and even worse banding and stuff all over the place. I don't even have to start about ISO 400 and this is sad. I use my P45+ a lot on ISO 200 and 400 and really like what I get, I don't mind some noise as long as the image is artifact free.

About downsizing ? Sorry what ? Why the hack should I make a 50 or 60 MP file into a 20MP file to get better ISO 800 ? If I want that kind of resolution I would have a 5DII which would kill a downsized file even with ISO 3200....

[Frank Doorhof]

It all depends on what you do which system you choose.
I own a 5D soon to be replaced by the 5DMKII and I own two MF systems (both with the same Leaf back).
For the low ISO work I use the MF for 99% of the work, for the high ISO work I use the Canon.
ISO400 I often shoot on the MF system, when it is commercial I shoot on both cameras just in case.

The downscaling remark was not so far strechted as you may think.
More pixels normally equals more noise.
I see alot of people comparing a 100% crop of a 5D to a 100% crop of a 39/33/22MP digital back and complaining about noise.
When you downscale the 22MP to 12MP the difference becomes much less.

Of course you want the more resolution of the digital back, but we are talking about making a comparison.
In other words will I shoot on the DSLR or on the MF system, it's the chicken and the egg story.

You have to make the decision if you want clean 12MP files or somewhat more noisy 22/31/39MP files.
When printing I think sometimes the higher resolution files especially on larger prints will look much better than the 12MP files.
Printing on A4 I think you will hardly see a difference between a 22MP ISO400 digital back or a ISO400 DSLR with 12MP.

On downscaling, there are brands (don't have to name them) that are using lower resolution than the full resolution for the higher ISOs.
I believe that was called a good option in the past.
For me it isn't.
I would rather shoot ISO800 and downsize myself than have my back do it for me.

I think in the end I strongly believe that a 5DMKII will be a great asset to own next to a good MF system, and you can have the best of both worlds.

Or in other words horses for courses.

[BJNY]

Frank,
Which lens(es) did you use,
and how's their performance at the extreme edges of the frame?
Thank you,
Billy

[Frank Doorhof]

I don't think I can yet give a 100% answer to the performance simply because it's a beta unit, it's not finished yet.
But what I have seen till now it's very very good.
Which isn't really a surprise seeing the system is based on a 6x6 lens base so even with the 10 there is still some cropping.
The lenses used are the 90mm and 180mm.

[gwhitf]

I looked thru the waist-level, the 45, and the 90 finders on both the Leaf afi and the Sinar Hy6 at Photo East. I think both of them would be nice studio cameras if you were on a tripod or camera stand, and you weren't hurried, or if you shoot catalogue all day.

But for me personally, trying to combine 6x6 and 645, at least in its current state, would not work for me. Too confusing.

When you look thru the finders you see a square image on the ground glass, with the corners of the square gone. If you can imagine that. Imagine a vertical 645 and a horizontal 645 laying on top of each other.

With the Leaf, you have to look down at this icon to see if the back was set to horizontal or vertical. With the Sinar, you had to look down at the LCD to see if you were set to horizontal or vertical. To me, it just added this extra element of doubt and anxiety -- would I shoot the camera in the wrong orientation? Again, you only encounter this anxiety with the hy6 design, since it's the only one based on square potential. Of the two bodies, I vastly preferred the Sinar rotating back design, since you could easily look down at the LCD and check your orientation.

Back in the Dark Ages, I shot a Fuji 680. When the Mark III version of that camera came out, the Finder in the camera had metal blades in it that were coupled to the orientation of the film back. So when you rotated the film back to horizontal, the tiny little men inside the finder put on their work gloves and they physically moved the metal blades inside the finder to show which orientation you were in. In short, it was a BRILLIANT DESIGN, because you always only saw what you were shooting -- either vertical or horizontal. The Mark I and Mark II versions of that camera did not do that, and oftentimes, I'd get in a hurry or be shooting spontaneously and I'd think I was shooting a vertical, and then when the film came back the head and feet were cropped out. Bad design.

So the Hy6 is not for me, unless they introduce a bladed viewfinder. Other than that it seemed like a nice camera, (especially when fitted with the 6x6 film back).

What I want is a simple digital MF camera that feels in my hand like a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7, with a four inch or five inch LCD, and it shoots a 31mp RAW file. No bells and whistles. Pure and easy and spontaneous, like the Canon 1ds3, but with a giant viewfinder and a larger file. I can dream...