LC 11 ???? will it ever be upgraded???

[AlDoori]

right.
when ferrari was bought by fiat, people had to pay for a firmware update to make sure that fiat will service their cars in the future.

[rainer_v]

Well yes Ferrari repairs the old cars, but certainly not for free.....

nothing is broken on these leaf backs which has to be repaired.
nothing has to be "upgraded" too i.m.o. the correct word has to be "unlock", not "upgrade".
the only problem seems for me that in C1 are some bits set/ written ( of course with exactly this intention ),
the "old" leaf back files are not recognised/ supported without being "unlocked".
the 2xxx $ "upgrade/ unlock"  let the back modify these bits and C1 accepts these back afterwards.
the files are not working because the software blocks them and the sw does this in the intention that you cannot use C1 for free,
so P1 can charge this money.
there is no upgrade necessary but a small code change in C1 to include the older leaf back file-flags in their supported list,
probably we will see that the reconsidered plan of P1 will not longer make it necessary to send in the backs ......

if they started to reconsider this now, most likely they will go this way.
but i just repeat i cannot understand who lead companies to such decisions,
which are so clearly ruining their fame and reputability.

[Frank Doorhof]

I've said it before but I'm still convinced that the whole discussion is a bit of overacting which is harming Leaf more than the procedure itself.

In my opinion it's very simple.
You have a Leaf Aptus back.
You still have warranty as you had.
You still can use leaf capture as you could before.
Leaf Capture is upgraded to Snow Leopard.

So IF leaf would never have been taken over by Phase one it would be the same situation.

Leaf however is a NEW COMPANY, not the same company but a new entity.
So as I see it the warranty now is handled by Kodak and not by Leaf Imaging (I could be wrong).
Leaf Imaging is a phase one company.
So they offer an upgrade for user that WANT it, to be able to start using capture one.
You will get a NEW warranty for your old back, let's say you had 2 months left in your warranty you now have a new period.
Imagine your back breaks down after 5 months, now you will have your money back, if not at least you can use Capture one.

For me personally I won't do the upgrade if it's indeed as expensive as mentioned here, I'm more than happy with Leaf Capture for what I do, but I do need a snow leopard version.
I'm more thinking about doing an upgrade to a new back in the future, but I will wait to see what is being released and at which price.
If the price would drop down to a few hunderd I will do the upgrade without thinking about it.

So in my opinion, there's no reason to be panicing.
No one forces anyone to upgrade, you still have your warranty as you would when Leaf was still with Kodak.
I see it as an extra option, you can take it or "leaf" it

[rainer_v]

I've said it before but I'm still convinced that the whole discussion is a bit of overacting which is harming Leaf more than the procedure itself.

In my opinion it's very simple.
You have a Leaf Aptus back.
You still have warranty as you had.
You still can use leaf capture as you could before.
Leaf Capture is upgraded to Snow Leopard.

So IF leaf would never have been taken over by Phase one it would be the same situation.

Leaf however is a NEW COMPANY, not the same company but a new entity.
So as I see it the warranty now is handled by Kodak and not by Leaf Imaging (I could be wrong).
Leaf Imaging is a phase one company.
So they offer an upgrade for user that WANT it, to be able to start using capture one.
You will get a NEW warranty for your old back, let's say you had 2 months left in your warranty you now have a new period.
Imagine your back breaks down after 5 months, now you will have your money back, if not at least you can use Capture one.

For me personally I won't do the upgrade if it's indeed as expensive as mentioned here, I'm more than happy with Leaf Capture for what I do, but I do need a snow leopard version.
I'm more thinking about doing an upgrade to a new back in the future, but I will wait to see what is being released and at which price.
If the price would drop down to a few hunderd I will do the upgrade without thinking about it.

So in my opinion, there's no reason to be panicing.
No one forces anyone to upgrade, you still have your warranty as you would when Leaf was still with Kodak.
I see it as an extra option, you can take it or "leaf" it

noone is forcing noone.
means one can act in business trying to make the last cent and squeezing it out of the clients whenever its possible or one can act with a more broadminded
firm politic. everybody is free to choose its way and so are the customers free to choose the company ( or the photographer ) they want to work with.

i myself choose the last path, means: often i dont count even the A2 prints i give to my clients and nearly always i deliver a bit ( or much )  more than written in my contract,- this is a part of that the customers usually are very content with the work i do for them,- although i am usually not on the cheap side in this business.
i think this is the right way to act if you are on the hi end ( means also expensive ) end of the market, the squeezing mentality may have its room at the cheap side where is no room in the price and to compensate there the dumping calculations.
so out of my personal way  i simply cant understand if people or companies act in such way narrow minded as i see it here happening
( once more ...) .

[Frank Doorhof]

noone is forcing noone.
means one can act in business trying to make the last cent and squeezing it out of the clients whenever its possible or one can act with a more broadminded
firm politic. everybody is free to choose its way and so are the customers free to choose the company ( or the photographer ) they want to work with.

i myself choose the last path, means: often i dont count even the A2 prints i give to my clients and nearly always i deliver a bit ( or much )  more than written in my contract,- this is a part of that the customers usually are very content with the work i do for them,- although i am usually not on the cheap side in this business.
i think this is the right way to act if you are on the hi end ( means also expensive ) end of the market, the squeezing mentality may have its room at the cheap side where is no room in the price and to compensate there the dumping calculations.
so out of my personal way  i simply cant understand if people or companies act in such way narrow minded as i see it here happening
( once more ...) .

Don't get me wrong I agree with you 100% on this one.
I think it would be wise from Leaf Imaging if they would have two options.

1. Only the firmware upgrade for let's say 200-500 US.
2. The firmware upgrade and the extended warranty, so one can choose what they want.

I don't know however if this works because Leaf Imaging is a different company than the old Leaf, so if they would change the firmware of the Leaf Aptus backs, would they still be serviced by Kodak ?
I think that could be the problem they are facing, and have to work out.

Maybe make an option 1B, do the upgrade and loose your warranty.

Trust me, I also don't want to pay preferable, however I do feel that the response now is incredibly harsh in some cases.

[rainer_v]

I don't know however if this works because Leaf Imaging is a different company than the old Leaf, so if they would change the firmware of the Leaf Aptus backs, would they still be serviced by Kodak ?
I think that could be the problem they are facing, and have to work out.

Maybe make an option 1B, do the upgrade and loose your warranty.

Trust me, I also don't want to pay preferable, however I do feel that the response now is incredibly harsh in some cases.

i dont think its that way.
most likely only in C1 has to be written that the "old" leaf back files are openeable too, not just the "upgraded" files.
as i see it, everything in the file structure between "upgraded" and not upgraded leaf aptus files will be the same - except the name tag.
if you "upgrade" this name tag in the raw file this will be changed and afterwards C1 recognize the back as a supported back.
they go that way that C1 can know which back is a supported one and which not. If they  would act a little bit more friendly to their ( old ) customers they simply write in C1 to open files with the name mark of the new leaf and of the old leaf company, cause there might be not any difference in the file information and structure itself, s in that case even no firmware update will be necessary.
i did not checked these files, but in this way it would make sense for me .....

[Frank Doorhof]

Makes sense, but we don't know.
MAYBE there indeed has to be changed something.

I know for example that the Aptus10 files can't be opened with the older versions of Leaf Capture.
But if nothing REALLY has to be changed, I strongly believe that the option should be free, or maybe just buy a key for 25.00 or buy the software or whatever.

[Kumar]

i dont think its that way.
most likely only in C1 has to be written that the "old" leaf back files are openeable too, not just the "upgraded" files.
as i see it, everything in the file structure between "upgraded" and not upgraded leaf aptus files will be the same - except the name tag.
if you "upgrade" this name tag in the raw file this will be changed and afterwards C1 recognize the back as a supported back.
they go that way that C1 can know which back is a supported one and which not. If they  would act a little bit more friendly to their ( old ) customers they simply write in C1 to open files with the name mark of the new leaf and of the old leaf company, cause there might be not any difference in the file information and structure itself, s in that case even no firmware update will be necessary.
i did not checked these files, but in this way it would make sense for me .....

In that case, it might be possible to "unlock" any back, to use any software that the photographer might want. Any thoughts?

Kumar

[rainer_v]

In that case, it might be possible to "unlock" any back, to use any software that the photographer might want. Any thoughts?

Kumar

it need color and curve adjustments mainly , there is no standard in the files from different backs/ cameras. so the answer is yes and no at the sam time. but this adaptions arent done in the back or camera with fw , they are done in the sw therefor so many cameras can work in C1.
in the case of the aptus backs its different cause the color/ curve adaptions are already done for the new aptus backs.
i dont believe there is any difference between a old leaf and a new leaf aptus II in the files itself except the name tags.
and even if there are some changes the sw easily can be programmed to read and accept these files.

[bcooter]

I think it would be wise from Leaf Imaging if they would have two options.

Sure Frank.  Write that check.

I think it would be wise if Phase found a way not to anger their new customers and marginalize medium format even further.

The only price a Leaf owner should pay for the pleasure of using V4 or V5 is the same price a Canon, or Nikon user pays, actually for the Leaf owner it should be half that price cause they won't allow tethering for a while and they do for Canon and Nikon.

For the long time Leaf Aptus  owner that suffered through centerfolds, overheating, replaced lcds, overshooting, green previews, non workable wi-fi  and a year of LC10, Phase should give them the good Samaritan award and pay them $2,600.  (maybe Kodak could chip in half of that).

(If you don't believe the above, go to the way back machine and read the early Aptus comments on the old Leaf-America and Leaf Photography forums that Leaf eventually took down.)

I don't think for a moment it takes a "firmware" upgrade because #1 you don't send your Canon or Nikon into Phase to get it to recognize files and #2 there was some guy on one of these forums with a PC script that changed the file tags from Leaf to Dog or something like that and .mos files  ran fine in C-1.   #3 RD, Lightroom and Apature don't require a "warranty" to process a Leaf file.

I guess I shouldn't care cause I've been Aptus Free for a while, though if this Phase plan works what's to keep them from going to their "old" legacy backs like the P30, P1, or P45 and wanting $2,600 bucks for a new "warranty" upgrade to continue using the software?

Of course by the time they get around to that those used backs probably won't sell for $2,600.

This corporate line of "if we didn't buy Leaf the owners would be left out" holds no water.  Phase bought Leaf with a plan and obviously we are seeing part of it.

If Phase continues with this plan or not is their business but in the end, whether they do it or don't do it, it's pretty freaky that they even thought about it.

IMO

BC

[Frank Doorhof]

@Bc,
Please read my whole post.
The two options are a very minor payment for handling (if necessary), I would much rather have it for free just like everyone.
And IF it's possible in the software I think it would be the best solution for Phase one to open it up for the backs.

The other option would be the extended warranty.

I'm not writing a check, my back is almost out of warranty and I'm not interested in an extended warranty, I will upgrade when I see the time fit.
I do want to be able to use Capture one, but not for an amount higher that let's say 200-500 US.
And even then I think it's a big investment for just the use of new software.
But I don't know WHAT they have to change, if it's indeed just a setting for the name of the back it would be ridiculous and it should be free and should be possible with the FW only.

[gwhitf]

If Phase continues with this plan or not is their business but in the end, whether they do it or don't do it, it's pretty freaky that they even thought about it.

Phase management gets The Larry David Award. The Larry David Award is given out each year to the company that can alienate their base customers the fastest, and in the largest numbers. Phase clearly deserves the award.

How long have they owned Leaf? Let's just call it "a very short time". So they've taken all that amazing brand loyalty that they accumulated with the Phase brand, and now they infect the Leaf brand with the same qualities.

Congratulations. Just what the market segment needs, to send yet another customer to Nikon.

I'm ordering me one of those James Russell stickers and slap it on my P45+, but it's going to say "Kamikaze brand".

[asf]

... You will get a NEW warranty for your old back, let's say you had 2 months left in your warranty you now have a new period.
Imagine your back breaks down after 5 months, now you will have your money back ...

I'm not writing a check, my back is almost out of warranty and I'm not interested in an extended warranty, I will upgrade when I see the time fit.

How do you reconcile these 2 statements? Imagine your back breaks down before you're able to upgrade, won't you "have your money back" if you "upgrade" for $2600?

If they continue with this upgrade policy, and now that there is a new back for $8k, your non-upgraded A22 won't be worth much at all if you want to do an actual upgrade to a newer back ...

[asf]

It will be interesting to see what effect this "upgrade" policy and the Aptus II 5 introduction has on prices of A22's and 54s's - if they start selling for $4k or less (without the Phase upgrade) I think I'd prefer to just buy one of those as a backup rather than pay $2600 for an extended warranty.

I predict if this policy goes through anything like it's set up now older Aptus will be clogging the For Sale pages at "best offer" prices, and those owners will switch to Hasselblad or give up MF entirely.

[TMARK]

This may end my romance with MFDB.  

I find that I use my Aptus professionaly less and less and less.  They are too cumbersome, even for low volume editorial portraits where I generally use window light.  I find Portra 800 or TMAX 400 pushed a stop is an easier work flow for me, and I prefer the results. The M8 at 320 is great, 640 and the noise doesn't show when printed on a web press.  If low light is really a concern I rent a D3 or a 5D2.  My commercial work is mainly motion, but I shoot most of the stills.  The M8 does just fine, sometimes film for the look, or I rent a DSLR.  When stills are the secondary consideration, I'm not rigging strobes for stills, I'm using what I lit the motion with.  Sometimes its a Briese Focus, sometimes a bunch of tungsten hot light, but the Aptus needs so much light that I don't use it.  I'd rather slab some CTB on the tungstens and shoot Portra 400.

So Phase wants me to spend $2600, the price of a 5D2, for what amounts to a FW upgrade?  Really?  So I can use this back that, honestly, does not fit my style or commercial needs anymore?  It makes nice files, better than a 5D2, but is so specialized that it is a fish out of water for TODAY's more natural, unlit photographic style.  Or my style, anyway.

Nikon, Canon, even Leica don't rawdog their user base like this.  Does Hasselblad?

[Frank Doorhof]

@asf,
It's an example.
For me however I won't be paying $2600,00 for extended warranty.
I never had a real problem with my back and I just hope that stays that way, and if it breaks down I will see what the costs of repair are and or upgrade or let it be repaired.
And knowing Murphy's law.........

About quiting MF, I will not at the moment.
I love my 5DMKII for some work, but I like the quality of the Aptus22 more on my beauty/fashion work so for me it's still MF that I will be using.
But I understand why some people will not upgrade after their back would not work anymore.

The thing I don't understand is that some people are claiming they will abandon MF now..... that's just weird.
What's changed ?
You can still use what you're using now, and new versions will appear for Snow Leopard, it's not that you're forced to upgrade..... that's the ONLY reason I posted in this conversation at all. Just to give a little reasoning.

Again, I won't be buying extra warranty, simply put because I don't think (hope) I will need it, and I don't find Capture One worth the $2600,00.
IF they would offer it for 200-500 I would upgrade but still would much much rather have it for free or a handling fee and to be 100% honest with the price range the backs were/are I think that this should be a free upgrade.
Don't get the wrong idea, I'm not diving blind into a writing a cheque for who knows what , I'm just pointing out that it's not a forced upgrade and for me no reason at all to drop MF that's just ridiculous. I will keep on using the same old back with the Snow Leopard version of Leaf Capture spitting out the same quality I'm used to.

[asf]

The thing I don't understand is that some people are claiming they will abandon MF now..... that's just weird.
What's changed ?

Read the post before yours, and others before that. The world/market/companies/work have all changed.
No one dislikes their backs now, they dislike this attitude from Phase and they just can't work with all the limitations their backs impose on them, esp when the superior quality, while still there, is not necessary.

We can continue with our backs and will, but when it comes time for new equipment where will we go? Pay 2-3x to stay with MFDB and get another Leaf/Phase and use C1? Somehow it's like marrying your ex-wife and continuing the alimony payments ...

[Frank Doorhof]

Oh I understand but I don't agree for me personally (on the second line).
I'm owning the 5DMKII and the Leaf on the RZ and 645AFD/III and have to say that in the studio the 5DMKII for me doesn't come close to the quality I get from the Leaf.

Then again, I'm incredibly picky, my customers  probably won't see a difference in the end result in most shots, but there are also the special needs that a MF just better suits for example I do a lot of high powered strobe shots on location and often shoot in the range of ISO25 F16-22 and when I would have to shoot that with a DSLR it would give me problems and more DOF. But that's a very specific thing I like to do.

What I do have to admit is that I'm using my 5DMKII on certain jobs more than I did my 5D in the past but still I will probably still buy a new back when my back will break down.
But again that's personal.

I think when you make the PURELY economical calculation MF is indeed a "bad" investment, but on the other hand when you look at the pricing of the modern systems it's not that much higher than a high end DSLR package. I know I bought my RZ complete with all the lenses I need for less than my 5DMKII.
The only big investment would be a digital back and those can be bought for very little used.

I can't shoot everything with the RZ that's 100% true, heck I can shoot very little with it, but for me that little is 70% of what I do so for me it works out fine.
But I also understand that doesn't work for everyone. It's all horses for courses.

The main problem (fun) is that DSLRs are getting so insanely good and having video helps a lot for me that when I would have been NOT using MF at the moment I would probably never felt the need for MF at the moment, but I would also like to add that I would be missing out on the quality.

I love both systems and at the moment could not live without either one.
For the future I hope as all people that there will be a MF back that shoots ISO3200 on at least 22MPs, has multiple AF points, ultra fast AF and no crop all for a price below 20K.
For the time being I will use both systems next to each other.

My opinion on companies is that they should support their clients, don't get me wrong on that issue.
But with Leaf there is a new situation at the moment and I don't know the technical problems, I think that if it were really just a matter of a firmware upgrade they would do it for free.
If not I would indeed agree 100% with everyone and would be upset that I had to pay for it when a newer back could do it without a problem.

[Mr. Rib]

it need color and curve adjustments mainly , there is no standard in the files from different backs/ cameras. so the answer is yes and no at the sam time. but this adaptions arent done in the back or camera with fw , they are done in the sw therefor so many cameras can work in C1.
in the case of the aptus backs its different cause the color/ curve adaptions are already done for the new aptus backs.
i dont believe there is any difference between a old leaf and a new leaf aptus II in the files itself except the name tags.
and even if there are some changes the sw easily can be programmed to read and accept these files.

I agree. That's why I think it's the case of squeezing every possible cent from old clients. The only sensible solution for me in this situation is:

1. deliver last free of charge LC software compatible with Snow Leopard and old Aptus backs
2. client side: make old aptus version owners buy C1 if they want to have up-to-date software for Snow Leopard .company side: make C1 fully compatible with old Aptus backs. make it like +$50 value for old Aptus users so that development cost is fully returned
3. have an option for extended warranty which costs about as much as a mentioned sum, but that's simply new manufacturer's warranty; for the users which need / want a warranty on their equipment, they have an option to follow and both sides are happy

That's the way the matter should be handled to make everyone happy. But yes, this would mean that P1 (or Leaf Imaging / Kodak who knows who's idea/order it is) won't squeeze money for nothing.

[zeitwand]

I agree. That's why I think it's the case of squeezing every possible cent from old clients. The only sensible solution for me in this situation is:

1. deliver last free of charge LC software compatible with Snow Leopard and old Aptus backs
2. client side: make old aptus version owners buy C1 if they want to have up-to-date software for Snow Leopard .company side: make C1 fully compatible with old Aptus backs. make it like +$50 value for old Aptus users so that development cost is fully returned
3. have an option for extended warranty which costs about as much as a mentioned sum, but that's simply new manufacturer's warranty; for the users which need / want a warranty on their equipment, they have an option to follow and both sides are happy

That's the way the matter should be handled to make everyone happy. But yes, this would mean that P1 (or Leaf Imaging / Kodak who knows who's idea/order it is) won't squeeze money for nothing.

signed!