Aptus-2 10

[harlemshooter]

Just played with the Aptus-2 10 for a few hours...but have yet to upload the images.

Would be interested to hear from anyone who has compared this camera with the P65+.

[Steve Hendrix]

Just played with the Aptus-2 10 for a few hours...but have yet to upload the images.

Would be interested to hear from anyone who has compared this camera with the P65+.

We hope to get an Aptus II 10 to look at soon, now that the dust is settling on the Leaf distribution. We're now a Leaf dealer, which for me personally is nice because I've always preferred offering customers a choice of options or at least having the ability to provide the most appropriate option. We've already posted quite a few P65+ tests. I had heard that the Aptus II 10 was from the same wafer as the P65+. It very well could be, so the difference might would come down to the raw conversion (Leaf Capture vs Capture One). There are certainly difference between the two products also - in terms of LCD screen, and how each gets you to a smaller file - cropping in camera with the Aptus II vs full frame resolution reduction with the P65+.

As soon as we get a chance, we'll get some comparisons up.


Steve Hendrix

[Frank Doorhof]

Hi,
I've shot with it during several demos I did for Leaf on Photokina and in Denmark.
I like the 3/2 ratio although I have to admit that for pure portrait work I still like the 4/3 a bit more but heck with that many pixels you can crop.
Quality is amazing although I have to add I was not shooting with a finished product.

I stopped down to f22 on several shots and the sharpness was still more than ok, best is however to stay arround f11-16 I think.
I was promised to shoot with the AFi-II10 in the studio a while ago but than everything with Leaf went the wrong way so that never happened.
Which was a shame, but I hope to do a more thorough test in the studio in the future.

Overal I love the quality of the Leaf products for skintones and the Aptus10 was no exception.

[harlemshooter]

My conclusion is that the Phase One has much better overall tonality.

[amsp]

I love how this myth of Leaf having better skintones refuses to die. Why is it so hard to understand that if you calibrate digital cameras there is very little to no difference in color between them? If you think the default profile of a RAW converter is somehow the inherit color of your digital camera you're obviously stuck in a film mentality.

[JDG]

I love how this myth of Leaf having better skintones refuses to die. Why is it so hard to understand that if you calibrate digital cameras there is very little to no difference in color between them? If you think the default profile of a RAW converter is somehow the inherit color of your digital camera you're obviously stuck in a film mentality.

The "Myth" refuses to die because it is largely true.  No color is not as different as it was in the days of film, but different ccd and backs DO see color differently.  The right profiling can bring them close but it is not the same.  Backs also use different IR filters which has a profound effect on the ability to reproduce color.  Take for instance the 22mp CCD from both kodak (P25) and Dalsa (, they have notable problems when it comes to reproducing green.  You will not see the same issue with say a P45+, the green reproduction is quite good.

P65+ and Aptus II 10 on the other hand should have similar skin tone qualities since the CCD are similar and from Dalsa.  The only real differences would come from specific profiling, processing algorithms and in-back processing.

[Frank Doorhof]

I tried several backs and somehow always liked the Dalsa chip more for what I do.
But the light has to be good and than it really shines.

I think there is a constant change in performance so I would love to test the new P45+ of course

[amsp]

The "Myth" refuses to die because it is largely true.  No color is not as different as it was in the days of film, but different ccd and backs DO see color differently.  The right profiling can bring them close but it is not the same.  Backs also use different IR filters which has a profound effect on the ability to reproduce color.  Take for instance the 22mp CCD from both kodak (P25) and Dalsa (, they have notable problems when it comes to reproducing green.  You will not see the same issue with say a P45+, the green reproduction is quite good.

P65+ and Aptus II 10 on the other hand should have similar skin tone qualities since the CCD are similar and from Dalsa.  The only real differences would come from specific profiling, processing algorithms and in-back processing.

I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.

[ThierryH]

I do fully second that.

Thierry

I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.

[JDG]

I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.

There is nothing theoretical about it.  Take a Leaf 22mp back and shoot a garment that is olive green.  It will be grey on screen.    Sure you can do all the post you want and get whatever result you want, but the point here is that the camera inherently produce images with different starting points for color.  If a back is giving you the skin tone you like out of the box, then it requires less post and saves time and money.

[amsp]

There is nothing theoretical about it.  Take a Leaf 22mp back and shoot a garment that is olive green.  It will be grey on screen.    Sure you can do all the post you want and get whatever result you want, but the point here is that the camera inherently produce images with different starting points for color.  If a back is giving you the skin tone you like out of the box, then it requires less post and saves time and money.

Now you're just way off. Digital cameras by nature have no significant built in "out of the box" look, it's all dependent on in-camera processing and what software you are using. Open a RAW file in different converters and it will look different in each one. That's why you have to do a calibration for each camera and specific software. If you're judging a camera's colors by the default settings in your software you are either an amateur, lazy or ignorant. This is true for other parts of a color workflow as well, monitors, printers, etc.

[eronald]

I'm sorry, but that's just theoretical bs with no real world relevance. Unless your idea of photography is doing scientific tests any properly calibrated camera and a basic understanding of digital post production will give you any kind of skintones you could possibly want. I've calibrated all my cameras, both different brands and formats, and the difference in skintones between them is negligible at best. By the time I'm done with editing they'll look like whatever I wanted for that particular shoot, no matter what camera I used.

Then I suggest you quickly sell your calibration methods to Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Adobe, and the moving film industry, who are at present desperately trying to solve this very problem. You lucky and soon to be very rich man, I admire your accomplishment, when I think of all these interminable ICC meetings I have sat through where idiotic so-called color-scientists droned on and on about their ongoing attempts at camera calibration. Why have you waited so long to announce this? But, by the way, have you tested your color vision and compared it to that of some young female of our species ?

Edmund

[David Klepacki]

Then I suggest you quickly sell your calibration methods to Nikon, Canon, Fuji and Adobe, and the moving film industry, who are at present desperately trying to solve this very problem. You lucky and soon to be very rich man, I admire your accomplishment, when I think of all these interminable ICC meetings I have sat through where idiotic so-called color-scientists droned on and on about their ongoing attempts at camera calibration. Why have you waited so long to announce this? But, by the way, have you tested your color vision and compared it to that of some young female of our species ?

Edmund

    This just made my day. Thanks!

[Frank Doorhof]

Problem with theoretical BS (sorry for the expression) is that it's theorie.

YES in theorie a well calibrated digital camera will give you similair results.
But in practice it simply is not.
As mentioned here it's indeed true that several RAW convertors will give you different results, mostly due to the way of the calculation of the colorspaces and the interpretation of the engine.
And there lies the problem.

Also in the camera there is an engine running, also not all sensors are equal.

A very simple example.
I tested a Hasselblad and a Mamiya ZD at app the same time.
Both were calibrated with a Gretag setup.
Both had wonderful skin tones compared to my calibrated 5D which was always a bit too redish in the magenta and orange (yellow) parts.
Still the look and feel of the Mamiya ZD won.

Problem with the ZD was that it was not evenly in color, when shooting a white piece of paper there were a lot of colorcasts.
And there were some more problems with the back (long story).
But the overal look was amazing.

I changed the ZD for a Leaf Aptus 22 with also a Dalsa censor.
The funny thing was that this back gave me a different (more accurate toning especially in the deep reds en deep greens) and was 100% correct in coloruniformity (as far as you can speak on 100% correct).

Although I have to say that especially with MF cameras the canned profiles are much better than most DSLR profiles you can yield profit by calibration.
HOWEVER to say that all cameras are the same after calibration is not understanding the fundamental basics of how ICC profiling and cameras work (sorry I don't mean this the wrong way).

I'm also an ISF calibrator and when we compare different displays with the same setting options like CMS and grayscale and gamma one would say that all those displays would look the same.
When we compare the calibration reports after the calibration and see they all are within a dE of 3 we would without a doubt say they are all exactly the same.
HOWEVER when we look at the displays there is a distinct difference between all of them, although they look very very similair.
For example a plasma will give you a totally different "look" than an LCD which is again different from a LED LCD.

So in the end, there is so much more going on than just making one ICC profile for a camera to make it look perfect.


I don't mean this to attack some posters, it's my personal experience and would like to also be read as that without flames.

[amsp]

I don't know why I even bother

[eronald]

Frank,

 Actually theory says that perfect camera calibration is impossible. Problem is there are 3 color filters in a Bayer sensor, and they usually do not coincide with the cone sensitivity curves in the human eye, nor with a linear combination thereof.  Thus mathematics alone indicate that such a bionic 3 sensor eye will be subject to metamerism effects when compared to a human eye - Bionic Woman will be disadvantaged compared to Human Woman.  Of course, when cameras and bionic eyes become multispectral, with more channels, humans will lose their advantage here

 In practice,  calibration will help as long as you don't expect perfection,  have easy subject matter with low IR reflecttivity (!) and are male and cannot see color well. I have found that only the best portrait and fashion photographers usually have good color perception - most photographers are happy with whatever their system gives them. Clients, be it in fashion (women) or in art reproduction (professional painters) may see the results very differently from the photographer and tend to be very vocal about it.

 Calibration ends to work best on digital back sensors because these are engineered for color accuracy at the expense of sensitivity -more orthogonal filters, lower ISO-   while14 bit data has also helped, historically.

 BTW Frank, I helped Xrite design their new calibration target for Raw - I helped them with the photo aspects, not the color technology, there. I hope you like it.

E

Problem with theoretical BS (sorry for the expression) is that it's theorie.

YES in theorie a well calibrated digital camera will give you similair results.
But in practice it simply is not.
I don't mean this to attack some posters, it's my personal experience and would like to also be read as that without flames.

[Frank Doorhof]

Perfect is always impossible (except my wife and son they are )

We use for the calibrations the Progressive labs microspec XL spectrum radio meters comparable to the minolta C2000.
There is a huge difference between perfect and perfect for the eyes

I did not yet see the target, I'm more aimed at highend calibration not the monitors or profiles (still use the old target for that).
You can always send me one for review

[Snook]

Now you're just way off. Digital cameras by nature have no significant built in "out of the box" look, it's all dependent on in-camera processing and what software you are using. Open a RAW file in different converters and it will look different in each one. That's why you have to do a calibration for each camera and specific software. If you're judging a camera's colors by the default settings in your software you are either an amateur, lazy or ignorant. This is true for other parts of a color workflow as well, monitors, printers, etc.

Not to argue but I have always noticed that Leaf Files are totally different than Phase One files. Are you saying you can get the Leaf and Phase to look the same if you process them both in CS4 for example? I was under the impression that yes different Backs produce different colors.
Not sure but that is what I always thought.
I have always noticed that leaf has the Orangy skin tones that are so obviuos maybe maybe I am wrong here.
When ever anybody post Leaf files here I can tell right away they are leaf. They usually look a little plasticy and orangy warm compared to Phase.
Again might just be my view. I though it was more than likelly the Back along with the software converting it but I do not think you can shoot a portrait with Leaf and one with Phase with same camera and lens and get the same skin tones..
Correct me if I am wrong please..
Thanks
Snook

[amsp]

Are you saying you can get the Leaf and Phase to look the same if you process them both in CS4 for example?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A calibration for ACR should get them fairly close to each other, the rest you can easily tweak in the converter. Surely you must have noticed the abundance of tools in ACR that lets you change skintones to your heart's content? Of course, if you just pull the files into ACR and use the default profile they will have a certain look, just like my P25 had terrible red skintones pre-calibration. If people want to think they're stuck with some kind of look just because you bought X or Y camera that's fine by me, I'll just happily keep shooting my different cameras getting the exact skintones I want every time  

[Steve Hendrix]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. A calibration for ACR should get them fairly close to each other, the rest you can easily tweak in the converter. Surely you must have noticed the abundance of tools in ACR that lets you change skintones to your heart's content? Of course, if you just pull the files into ACR and use the default profile they will have a certain look, just like my P25 had terrible red skintones pre-calibration. If people want to think they're stuck with some kind of look just because you bought X or Y camera that's fine by me, I'll just happily keep shooting my different cameras getting the exact skintones I want every time  

I would say that it's possible to tweak camera files from different cameras/sensors so they look very similar. But out of camera, they certainly can look very different. This week I shot a P30+ and P40+ on some furniture side by side. After color balancing on a MacBeth card the color response on the wood was quite different. No doubt I could make adjustments so they matched or so that one produced the color I needed. But it certainly would not be my wish to have to do so. Skin tones are a little different story as there is more subjectivity involved. I can't say that I've shot with a camera (in recent years) where I felt the skin tones were not acceptable. But they were not necessarily equal or equivalent either. I can see where to some, there may be preferences.


Steve Hendrix