Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: JonathanBenoit on May 09, 2010, 09:53:54 am
-
Just curious if anyone has compared the two.
I'm assuming the Leaf would be better because of the smaller pixel size. Is this correct?
-
Both are 22mpx, so aren't they the same pixel size at 9 micron?
Leaf Aptus II 5 48x36 Dalsa sensor less prone to color cast
Phase One P25+ 49x37 Kodak sensor better at long exposures
-
Aren't they the same pixel size at 9 micron?
Leaf Aptus II 5 48x36 faster capture speed Dalsa sensor
Phase One P25+ 49x37 better at long exposures Kodak sensor
I read that the leaf is 7.2 while the phase one is 9
-
I believe the 7,2 pixel size is for the Leaf or Sinar (Dalsa) 28 and 33mpx ; all "old" 22mpx are 9 micron.
-
Edited my earlier reply before seeing yours.
Both Aptus-II 5 and P25+ are definitely 9 micron pixel size.
Instead, Leaf 28 and 33 mpx digital backs are 7.2 micron.
-
From Leaf's website...
Leaf Aptus-II 5 22 MP
The Leaf Aptus-II 5 is one of the fastest backs available, and the most affordable Leaf camera back. This 48mm x 36mm sensor offers a 22 MP resolution sensor, with 7.2-micron pixel size. The Leaf Aptus-II 5 captures at 0.9 seconds per frame, with a CCD size of 5356 x 4056 pixels.
-
It is just a mistake on their web site.
36x48 x 7.2= 33mp (as the Aptus-II 7)
But that being said, the difference could be more about Color Rendering & Long Exposures capacity...
-
It is just a mistake on their web site.
36x48 x 7.2= 33mp (as the Aptus-II 7)
But that being said, the difference could be more about Color Rendering & Long Exposures capacity...
That's a big mistake. Good to know.
Thanks
-
Color cast is correctable,
so Phase/Kodak solution is best if you need [really] long exposure capability.
Also, depending what your subject matter will be, higher mpx [than 22] would be less prone to moiré.
-
Another consideration is the different sensors that are implemented in the older Phase backs (P25+, Kodak chip) vs. Leaf and the newer Phase backs (P40+, P65+, Dalsa chips). Leaf shooters have long said that they chose Leaf for the Dalsa sensor because of the more film-like tonal transition rendering compared to the Kodak sensors. You also hear comments about better tonal transitions in skin tones. I would agree with those comments and several of the guys over on the GetDPI forum who have switched to the newer Phase backs with Dalsa sensors are saying the same thing compared to their older Phase backs with Kodak sensors. I use Leaf for this difference in rendering; it somehow looks just somewhat less digital to my eye. It is a personal image esthetic choice. This quality also translates quite well in B&W conversions.
-
Leaf's live view is better, though of course it is still a bad joke compared to DSLRs.
-
So there's no confusion,
Leaf and any other medium format digital back's live video is viewable only on computer display when tethered.
-
That's a big mistake. Good to know.
Thanks
Hi Jonathan,
The mistake has now been fixed, thank you for pointing it out.
If you need any (convincing) raw files from 22MP Leaf backs please let me know:-)
BR
Yair
-
But I will always side with the Aptus when it comes to the color and tonal nuances. Since both go through Capture One, that may now be less evident.
One thing I like with my Leaf is indeed colors, simply because they frequent look pleasing at default and which gives departure point for adjustments. Since now using Capture One, frank speaking my Aptus 65 feels like a new camera, it is that good!
It would seem Leaf had their hand in implementing color profiles for Capture One.
Yair, is this correct understanding?
Mine is Aptus 65.
Regards
Anders
-
One thing I like with my Leaf is indeed colors, simply because they frequent look pleasing at default and which gives departure point for adjustments. Since now using Capture One, frank speaking my Aptus 65 feels like a new camera, it is that good!
It would seem Leaf had their hand in implementing color profiles for Capture One.
Yair, is this correct understanding?
Mine is Aptus 65.
Regards
Anders
Leaf backs were always perceived to produce great colour and a certain “look” and we wanted to maintain this in Capture One, therefore Capture One can make use of Leaf’s own ICC profiles as well as our develop curves. In doing so, the initial look of the images is very close to what you get in Leaf Capture, and then of course you can further enhance it by using Capture One’s adjustment tools, lens correction facilities etc.
Yair
-
One thing I like with my Leaf is indeed colors, simply because they frequent look pleasing at default and which gives departure point for adjustments. Since now using Capture One, frank speaking my Aptus 65 feels like a new camera, it is that good!
It would seem Leaf had their hand in implementing color profiles for Capture One.
Yair, is this correct understanding?
Mine is Aptus 65.
Regards
Anders
It also appears to me that this is an evolving process as I worked some Aptus files in LC11/C1 several months ago and then again recently and noticed an improvement in the smoothness and gradations of the skin tones in Capture One. The concern being that skin tones (for which Leaf has always been noted for) would be a weakness in Capture One. Initially this seemed like a valid concern as I saw a different and less satisfactory result comparing the same file in Leaf Capture to Capture One. But the current version of Capture One (5.1.1) seems to capture much more closely that even skin tone that comes out of Leaf Capture.
Steve Hendrix
-
Leaf backs were always perceived to produce great colour and a certain “look”........snip
Yair
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At times I can promise you the Leaf looks more film like than a Phase or kodak sensored camera, other times I'd say not, same with Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Leica.
I am positive all of these cameras and the resulting processors, whether proprietary or 3rd party can produce subtle to widely different results, mostly subject light dependent.
Then again going to final, none of this matters that much as every image will go through rounds of post and rounds of coloring, toning, etc.
We've also gone through stages in still digital capture, to the point most of the changes I see come from the software processing, not the physical back. Clients don't ask about file size, camera makes, bit depth, at least not now, they ask about the project, the price, the location, the price, the catering, the price.
It's kind of funny that of all the processors I work, Lightroom , C1-v5, CS4 extended and Raw developer, RD (though a somewhat clunky interface) has the most controllable features and in my view the most "film like" result regardless of the camera or back.
[attachment=21894:american_worker1.jpg]
BC
-
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. At times I can promise you the Leaf looks more film like than a Phase or kodak sensored camera, other times I'd say not, same with Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Leica.
I am positive all of these cameras and the resulting processors, whether proprietary or 3rd party can produce subtle to widely different results, mostly subject light dependent.
Then again going to final, none of this matters that much as every image will go through rounds of post and rounds of coloring, toning, etc.
We've also gone through stages in still digital capture, to the point most of the changes I see come from the software processing, not the physical back. Clients don't ask about file size, camera makes, bit depth, at least not now, they ask about the project, the price, the location, the price, the catering, the price.
It's kind of funny that of all the processors I work, Lightroom , C1-v5, CS4 extended and Raw developer, RD (though a somewhat clunky interface) has the most controllable features and in my view the most "film like" result regardless of the camera or back.
[attachment=21894:american_worker1.jpg]
BC
I most certainly agree here as well. I often will run a RAW file (Leaf, Canon, Nikon) through several RAW processors (ACR, C1 v.5, RAW Developer), and I often end up choosing the RAW Dev. processed Tiff from which to work.