Thoughts on the Leaf Credo

[Brian Hirschfeld]

In this article: http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2012/04/23/initial-impressions-leaf-credo-announcement/ entitled "Initial Impressions: Leaf Credo Announcement" I look at the announcement and some of the first facts about the announcement of the new Leaf Credo series of digital backs. Would love to talk about and get some impressions of the article as well as the Leaf Credo system going....

Sincerely,
Brian Hirschfeld

[EricWHiss]

Leaf still will be producing the AFI-ii 10 and AFi-ii 12 backs which have the rotating sensor and articulating screen and ability to enter in comments and data into file EXIF from the back.  All desirable features that the Credo and IQ don't have.   No death blow to the platform as you write and I'm not sure why you'd write it anyhow (maybe from inexperience with the mark?).  You can still get Sinar backs for the platform too, and besides one can always shoot film with the Hy6 too.  If you like well designed equipment, you owe it to yourself to check it out.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I did note that Sinar still makes the back, and Credo certainly is indicative from the future where I was making my predictions about the future based one what we saw from them.

Don't you think it's interesting that their newest flagship MFDB doesn't support the system that they were one of they key proponents of?

That is something I would be interested in hearing some opinions of.

[Lacunapratum]

Brian - you are quite perceptive.  Probably lack of a unifying strategy between the players.  Considering the complexity of the enterprise perhaps no wonder. 

Leaf - they need to be congratulated for their loyalty to the system, but they were also the ones who abandoned the Hy6 team already at the point of their first announcement. 

Rollei/DHW - Kudos for their commitment to customer service and system continuation; it was their predecessors however who with a combination of high price and design flaws (SLX, 6006) allowed the decline of the Rollei brand.  Credit for their willingness to launch a new camera with only little brand recognition and red cards for their inability to get a web site going and have a modern company. 

Norddeutsche Landesbank - the ones who underestimated reasonable investment needs to rejuvenate Franke & Heidecke in the 80ies.  A more generous investment would have paid dividends IMHO and the Hy6 could be one of the leading systems today. 

Jenoptik - the conglomerate of greedy defense industry shareholders who had an all too passing interest in a digital medium format platform. 

Sinar – perhaps the most customer service oriented part of the equation who suffered from their own financial pressures and returned more or less to their core business. 

… if only DHW and Leaf could get their heads together for a Hy6ii, with some goodwill from Phase.  A could see a delightful alternative to Leica (S2) and Pentax.  I know I am dreaming. 

[EricWHiss]

It's clear Rollei has made some of the finest cameras but has never excelled at marketing particularly in the US.      Phase + Mamiya 645 is like beauty and the beast - something that 4 generations now of camera design now could not fix.   Phase + Hy6 would have been the best of the best.   I'll never understand it.    

My take is that since Leaf went with the Phase chassis with internal battery there was no space to work with and had to abandon their internal sensor rotation tech.    This was a key thing for 6x6 cameras and maybe it didn't make sense without it.  I know Leaf told me my choice was the AFi-ii 12 with the rotating sensor or the sexy screen and no rotating sensor but basically the same image quality.  I'd take the AFi-ii 12 every time because the rotating sensor is that useful.    So at least in several ways the AFi-ii 12 is better than the Credo.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Rollei and the Hy6 certainly have some of the best lenses thanks to Schneider, with autofocus (I believe) its a shame that they cannot manage to get these lenses onto a popular system with autofocus, or come up with a more marketable solution. I'd be interesting if Leaf on their part at least hat them come up with a Mamiya 645DF which took the Rollei / Schneider lenses with full electronic connection for lens and body communication as well as autofocus. Then they would at least show users of the Hy6 system that they were not forgotten. Since aside from being amazing lenses, investing in them does not come cheap, it would certainly show commitment to their customers.

[EricWHiss]

Brian,
I think that's a bad idea.  A good idea would be like Lacunapratum suggests - Phase invest in Hy6 ii.

[Brian Hirschfeld]

I've used mine almost every day since I received it, and prior to that shot a Mamiya 645AFDiii on film and have absolutely enjoyed the experience and gotten great results. It certainly depends on what you are using it for! no generalizations!

[EricWHiss]

It's inefficient to put 6x6 lenses on a 645 camera. They will be heavier than they need to be.  It's better to build a camera that can take advantage of them.  Wait! There is one.

[dergiman]

There is no need for a Hy6 mk2! The camera is great already, it is just missing the digital back support.

[henrikfoto]

There is no need for a Hy6 mk2! The camera is great already, it is just missing the digital back support.

Yes, but when will they run out of parts for repair? Are these parts still made?

[Gigi]

A second version could be a tad bit more robust, and have more protection for the switches on the left side, maybe even a removable handle for travel. Isn't there a color sensor that is wanting to be hooked up? Saveable AF offset for each lens.... dreaming. Its such a wonderful platform tho.

What would really be a good thing would be some sort of alternative lens mounting. They can go on an Alpa with a Rollei shutter control, but wouldn't it be great to have some alternative platform for our (growing) stable of wonderful lenses?   

[dergiman]

DHW is still selling new Hy6 bodies. They also introduced two new lenses (120 and 150mm) with the 35mm still under development (according to DHW). So i do not worry about spare parts.

[amsp]

My guess is we'll see a new PhaseOne camera at photokina, and considering how long it's been in development I predict it will be very interesting indeed.

[Kagetsu]

My guess is we'll see a new PhaseOne camera at photokina, and considering how long it's been in development I predict it will be very interesting indeed.

I really hope so.

[BJL]

It's inefficient to put 6x6 lenses on a 645 camera. They will be heavier than they need to be.

Firstly for digital, te sensor formats are going to stay at 645 or smaller (currently 54x40mm actually), so a new 6x6 format body would not help there; it would only be relevant to film users, and I see no hope of a new camera design effort solely for the sake of 6x6 format film users.

But more importantly, the fear of a weight difference is probably unfounded because most optical designs would not differ significantly between 6x6 and 645 format, except perhaps the choice of focal lengths. In most cases, lenses of a given focal length and minimum f-stop for different formats do not vary much in optical design so long as the FOV is about normal or narrower; designs change mainly when wide-angle coverage is needed. Widely used lens designs naturally deliver an image circle diameter comparable to of greater than the focal length, which is then "cropped" by the film or sensor to the needed size. So all but a few wide angle lens for a 6x6 system are already fine, and not bulkier than designs for 645 format would be.

Anyway, the image circle size is not that much different: 80mm vs 70mm: we are not talking 35mm vs APS-C here!


To get an idea of how little lens design relies on matching image circle size to the film/sensor format, it is interesting to see the specs of lenses for the Mamiya RZ67 at
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RZ80.asp
which is the only lens system for which I can find this data. Every lens from 65mm up covers far larger image area than even the 6x8 format that this system also supports: that 65mm wide angle lens covers 80x100mm, the 90mm normal covers 82x97mm, and so on up to 298x370mm for the 250/4. In fact every lens covers a field significantly wider than the focal length, so optically, they are all optical designs of moderately wide-angle coverage, then cropped, often massively, by the film or sensor.

[epatsellis]

If I'm not mistaken, the "Minimum Image Area" portion of the specification refers to the smallest area that the particular lens will image (at minimum focusing distance). My experience with RB lenses tells me that the image circles tend to be larger than one would expect for an 8x8 camera (which the RB and RZ really are...). The 90 covers 4x5, the 65 and 50 are mechanically vignetted.

erie

[ondebanks]

But more importantly, the fear of a weight difference is probably unfounded because most optical designs would not differ significantly between 6x6 and 645 format, except perhaps the choice of focal lengths. In most cases, lenses of a given focal length and minimum f-stop for different formats do not vary much in optical design so long as the FOV is about normal or narrower; designs change mainly when wide-angle coverage is needed. Widely used lens designs naturally deliver an image circle diameter comparable to of greater than the focal length, which is then "cropped" by the film or sensor to the needed size. So all but a few wide angle lens for a 6x6 system are already fine, and not bulkier than designs for 645 format would be.

Anyway, the image circle size is not that much different: 80mm vs 70mm: we are not talking 35mm vs APS-C here!

I agree re. the essential similarity of the optical designs. However, the actual glass often accounts for a modest fraction of the overall lens weight. Having a leaf shutter (and in the case of the Rollei lenses, also those two linear motors driving the shutter and aperture) adds considerable weight, as do differences in the barrel and bayonet diameters and materials. When I compare my Rollei HFT 80/2.8 to an M645 80/2.8, the weight difference is huge, although their glass construction is almost the same.

To get an idea of how little lens design relies on matching image circle size to the film/sensor format, it is interesting to see the specs of lenses for the Mamiya RZ67 at
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/legacy_RZ80.asp
which is the only lens system for which I can find this data. Every lens from 65mm up covers far larger image area than even the 6x8 format that this system also supports: that 65mm wide angle lens covers 80x100mm, the 90mm normal covers 82x97mm, and so on up to 298x370mm for the 250/4. In fact every lens covers a field significantly wider than the focal length, so optically, they are all optical designs of moderately wide-angle coverage, then cropped, often massively, by the film or sensor.

Nope! I'm afraid you've seriously misinterpreted the "Area Covered" specification for all these RZ67 lenses. It's not the size of the image projected by the lens! It's the dimensions of the object which will be imaged onto 6x7 cm film when the lens is set to closest focus (bellows at full extension). There's a clue in the way that this specification follows the "Minimum Focusing Distance" and "Maximum Magnification Ratio" specs in every case.

I have specs for the M645 lenses, and they follow the same trends under these headings.

Glad I nipped that in the bud - otherwise we'd have all the Large-Formatters running to the nearest RZ67 stockist, to cannibalize their lenses!

Ray

[ondebanks]

If I'm not mistaken, the "Minimum Image Area" portion of the specification refers to the smallest area that the particular lens will image (at minimum focusing distance). My experience with RB lenses tells me that the image circles tend to be larger than one would expect for an 8x8 camera (which the RB and RZ really are...). The 90 covers 4x5, the 65 and 50 are mechanically vignetted.

erie

Erie - you are indeed "not mistaken" 

Funny how we posted the same within seconds of each other!

Ray

[Gel]

You know, I love these backs but they're just so damn expensive, honestly it's just too much. I can't see how you'd get a return on investment.

$20000 for a 40mp back? What's new to justify the money?

$10k-$12k, sure sign me up. 20k no. Just no. Stop the madness.