Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: torger on September 26, 2016, 10:32:55 am
-
I've been away from the forums a while and sort of missed the Photokina hype. However I've noted while there's this new IQ1 100, there's no Credo 100. It seems to me that Phase One is not going to make any more products with the Leaf brand, but instead let the "IQ1" series take the budget role. Has anything official been said in this regard?
-
If I have to take a guess, then I would say a Credo 100 will indeed be released at some point. Users who are fond of the Leaf color profiles would like that and users who await 100MP prices to be even lower than IQ1-100 would like that. Phase One knows that. Therefore, Leaf brand does have some business value for Phase One to keep it alive.
-
Seems unlikely actually, Phase apparently silently added (some) Leaf color profiles for the 100 backs: https://digitaltransitions.com/leaf-look-iq1-100mp-iq3-100mp/
I'm still missing the ProPhotoRGB profile, will this get added soon? But as a Leaf user I do find this a good thing.
-
There is a rumor going on (please confirm) that Phase One discontinued the CCD 60 & 80mp sensors -for new backs- altogether... It might then be that some stock of these sensors has been transferred to Mamiya/Leaf... It would then make sense (if that is the case) for Leaf to first sell that stock before they can offer the CMOS 54x40mm sensor which could cannibalize the Credo 60 & 80 offerings if offered at a competitive price...
-
There is a rumor going on (please confirm) that Phase One discontinued the CCD 60 & 80mp sensors
60mp backs were discontinued (but will live a long time as refurbished and used digital backs (https://digitaltransitions.com/products/used-digital-backs/)). 80mp were not.
-
60mp backs were discontinued (but will live a long time as refurbished and used digital backs (https://digitaltransitions.com/products/used-digital-backs/)). 80mp were not.
I'm sure they will.... live a long time! Actually I think we are saying the same thing and much agree! ;)
-
Seems unlikely actually, Phase apparently silently added (some) Leaf color profiles for the 100 backs: https://digitaltransitions.com/leaf-look-iq1-100mp-iq3-100mp/
I'm still missing the ProPhotoRGB profile, will this get added soon? But as a Leaf user I do find this a good thing.
I think that they've added the Leaf look to the IQ backs further indicates that there will be no new Leaf products and no Credo 100. The Leaf users can now simply move to IQ series and still have the look they prefer. I see no other business reason for Phase One to add Leaf looks to the IQ other than making it easier for Leaf users to take the jump.
Leaf ICC profiles had a different format than Phase One profiles, as the original Leaf Capture software had a different color pipeline. If I remember correctly, with Leaf the raw data is first converted via a matrix profile (embedded in the raw) to ProPhoto primaries and then the ICC profile is applied, while Phase One applies it directly to the raw data. That alternative pipeline was integrated to Capture One and used only for Leaf backs, that way they could use the original Leaf profiles. I wonder if they in this case have reformatted the Leaf look into the traditional Phase One ICC format, or if they still use the "Leaf Capture color pipeline" for those. If they have reformatted them there could theoretically still be some minor look differences.
An additional source to look difference is white balance presets (if used). The exact tint of "Daylight", "Flash" etc presets can differ quite much between manufacturers. For example if you're a landscape photographer used to shooting with Leaf's daylight preset that may or may not be kept in the IQ back so you may or may not get the same tint (I don't know how they've done regarding that).
The Leaf "ProPhotoRGB" profile changes very little from the base matrix conversion in the color pipeline, I guess that's why it's called "Prophoto". It's also the least subjective profile, and ironically it seems to be very popular. And sure if you know your post-processing it's nice to start off with something neutral.
-
There's no Mamiya version of the XF either... The platform suggested from Mamiya is still the DF one.
What sounds strange to me, is that they bought all the rest of the Mamiya/Leaf shares only about a year ago so that they would have 100% control over the company.... They bought Mamiya as to close it down?
Never the less, it will be a sad story if Leaf ceases production... It is the only "open" platform left as to provide backs to third party platforms... I wonder, wouldn't an investor care as to save Mamiya? But OTOH I reckon that an investor would probably require to have access to the software and to the new (XF) platform, other than adding a "FF" Cmos back and video to the Cmos based sensor backs... and I'm not sure if Phase One is prepared to share any of those with a possible investor... at least not the C1 software...
-
There's no Mamiya version of the XF either... The platform suggested from Mamiya is still the DF one.
What sounds strange to me, is that they bought all the rest of the Mamiya/Leaf shares only about a year ago so that they would have 100% control over the company.... They bought Mamiya as to close it down?
Never the less, it will be a sad story if Leaf ceases production... It is the only "open" platform left as to provide backs to third party platforms... I wonder, wouldn't an investor care as to save Mamiya? But OTOH I reckon that an investor would probably require to have access to the software and to the new (XF) platform, other than adding a "FF" Cmos back and video to the Cmos based sensor backs... and I'm not sure if Phase One is prepared to share any of those with a possible investor... at least not the C1 software...
Well, there was an investor that saved Mamiya, it was Phase One. Was the brand name saved? No. But the employees jobs were saved, they kept their jobs, and they continued to be able to make cameras and lenses, in fact far better versions than the excellent ones they had produced before.
It's not all bad.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Farewell, Leaf. Goodbye, Mamiya.
-
I'm sure they will.... live a long time! Actually I think we are saying the same thing and much agree! ;)
Film is "never dead". Neither will CCD be!
-
Well, there was an investor that saved Mamiya, it was Phase One. Was the brand name saved? No. But the employees jobs were saved, they kept their jobs, and they continued to be able to make cameras and lenses, in fact far better versions than the excellent ones they had produced before.
It's not all bad.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Actually Steve, I'm in a position to know that the investment of P1 to Mamiya was NOT done for the purpose of "saving" Mamiya, but rather because they tried to resurrect Contax 645, it didn't work and they chose Mamiya instead as to find a "ready" platform that would serve as an in house complete solution....
Anyway... will the Leaf name also disappear? Or will it serve as intro level offerings from P1? I guess that they can retain the "Credo" name, and make a line named P1 "Credo" for entry level....
-
Actually Steve, I'm in a position to know that the investment of P1 to Mamiya was NOT done for the purpose of "saving" Mamiya, but rather because they tried to resurrect Contax 645, it didn't work and they chose Mamiya instead as to find a "ready" platform that would serve as an in house complete solution....
Anyway... will the Leaf name also disappear? Or will it serve as intro level offerings from P1? I guess that they can retain the "Credo" name, and make a line named P1 "Credo" for entry level....
Yes, Theo, I was well aware of the attempts with Contax. And I had been told some reasons why it just couldn't happen. It's a shame Contax could not hang around or be resurrected. But I think it has worked out good for Mamiya, other than losing their branding. Well, as could be expected, anyway. Let's face it, moving analog camera companies into the digital era has been a very rough and bloody landscape, with many casualties who were never heard from again, and others who pulled through, but with necessary changes to their constitution.
I don't know if the Leaf name will disappear. What I hope, for Leaf users, is continued access to the Leaf profiles and Leaf look, whether that comes through in an IQ product or a Credo product, as well as continuing support for those who purchase Credo products, which, legally (I believe), should continue for at least 7 years from the point at which they discontinue offering the ability to order a new Leaf Credo digital back (should they do so at some point). That point has not officially been reached.
Regardless of what happens with the Leaf name and product line, I have a high degree of respect for Leaf, the individuals who have made up the Leaf team for so many years, and their somewhat different approach to things, (I mean that in a good way). And also the many technical developments Leaf brought to the product segment, many of which have benefitted Phase One and made Phase One a stronger company.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Who owns the Mamiya brand name now and how much the brand can cost after it value was drained?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Phase apparently silently added (some) Leaf color profiles for the 100 backs: https://digitaltransitions.com/leaf-look-iq1-100mp-iq3-100mp/
I'm still missing the ProPhotoRGB profile, will this get added soon? But as a Leaf user I do find this a good thing.
Thanks for sharing this information, I was not aware of this. I am quite fond of the Product 5 profile so I am very happy to see its available now to IQx-100 users. But quite a few other Leaf profiles are still absent. I would think they will be incememntally added.
I wonder if "LF5 Product" profile is similar to LF3 Product 5 ...
(http://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s7/v157/p449924339.png)
(http://jawad.zenfolio.com/img/s9/v17/p405752774.png)
-
The Mamiya name is owned by P1 Yevgeny, they bought the rest of the shares less than a year ago and now have full control over the company. I hapenned to be invited in a presentation of the P-65+ back, which was a combined presentation of P1 and Mamiya at the days (many years ago) and there I had a long conversation with the P1 representative... At the days Mamiya was "shrunk" to about 110 employs and P1 was of similar size.
I don't know if P1 thinks of selling the Mamiya name only, but I also believe that it won't be easy to do so... It seems to me that "P1 group" is in a process of shrinking the size of production considerably and return back to making P1 products only and then, on a smaller volume.
No new products were released under the Mamiya name, there will be the existing Leaf products as far as the stock lasts (no new ones). Other than that, they also stopped the IQ-2 line but the Achromat, which is the only B&W back they make... They've also stopped the 60mp CCD backs from the IQ-1 series and I suppose the 80mp CCD backs will also be discontinued after the stock expires.
So in the current status, if stock of CCD sensors was all consumed, that would leave the P1 group with the IQ1-50 & 3-50 and then with the IQ1-100 & 3-100 for backs, the XF platform and the Schneider line of lenses... and of course, the C1 software.
I would therefore expect an "achromat" back with Cmos sensor to also be released at some time.
The thing is that P1 is now called to compete with products out of lots of other makers that are sharing the same sensors, yet are priced better, or by far better in some cases and all of them having HQ video capability in their specification (which P1 lucks).
Other than that, ALPA's offerings with matched P1 backs, are now also offered with Hasselblad offerings with even better integration and clearly looking to expand towards the video market... My opinion is that P1 needs to also expand towards the video market and then, at Hi-end level too... Other than that, they also need (IMO) to revise their pricing/marketing policies... Times have changed from when P1 dominated the market when Hasselblad decided to stop the CF backs (and thus left P1/Leaf without competition at all...). At those days one that needed to upgrade his back only, he either had to buy a P1/Leaf back, or had no alternative... and then the 80mp CCD sensor back was only available from P1 which expanded the luck of competition further.
Now P1 decided to "block" their older customers from using the XF platform... Not a wise decision at all IMO, having a wide existing base of customers than trying to create a new one is a fundamental law behind marketing policies, they should be doing exactly the opposite.... offer the XF platform with alternative interface and "open" it to all users of M-645 fit backs (even of third party backs that are of M645 physical mount) all the same. ....IMO.
-
My opinion is that P1 needs to also expand towards the video market and then, at Hi-end level too...
High end video comes in a lot of flavors. Depending on your world and needs, that can cover $5,000 video cams to $100,000 cinema packages.
With today's tech, if Phase One wanted to make a larger than 35mm "video" camera it would have to be this size, because if Arri could make it smaller they would and Arri is very good at making movie cameras.
http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/
We dove deep in the motion world (don't like the term video) a long time ago and today my takeaway is don't over produce. I don't mean shoot it bad, or not useable, but pulling out a $50,000 RED package to shoot some motion clips of a still shoot is just overkill and makes for a much longer day.
After all most cinema cameras (whatever that is) don't go much past 1,000 iso and that's being very careful and precise with lighting and ratios. What a lot of clients expect from a dedicated still shoot is some useable clips for web play, presentations, maybe even in store and they want it with as little fuss as possible.
We carry our RED's to most projects because we own them but unless it's a dedicated video shoot, 9 times out of 10 I'll just set my Canon 1dx with some flatter settings and recreate the scene for motion. It produces very useable footage, has easy to work Canon color and other than some simple curve adjustments is easy to color. We are buying the idx II because canon's pdaf motion focus is quite remarkable for quick clips.
In the motion world, the easier the better, though truthfully if we shoot RED footage next to anything smaller like Canon or Sony dslr footage, we usually go to the RED footage because it's much more robust, though in the world of commerce the easier/faster the better.
In regards to the craze of pulling stills from motion footage, it can be done, we do it, but it's not that easy. A red 4/5 k still even at a high shutter speed is probably equal to a 7 year old dslr still. (not motion . . . dedicated still) and even set to uhd (16x9) it's a very skinny frame for still use.
As far as phase "locking out" Leaf customers, I don't see it that way. Their business model has always been predicated on the upgrade process and going forward. In the digital capture world, every manufacturer's business model is to sell you up to the next level.
I mean how many lens mounts has sony made in the last few years and will probably have a newer lens mount if/when Sony makes a larger than 35mm camera.
It just depends on what you shoot. If you use medium format you probably spend most of the time with controlled lighting and/or a tripod. Medium format is great in those situations.
But IMO if phase has any issue, it's that their digital backs last so long and they have supported them in their software for a long time.
I think broad statements about what a company should do are just assumptions. It's like a client asking me for 8k, 6k, 5k, 4k, 2k footage in a complete edit with stills that exactly match.
It's just not possible in today's tech and time limitations on a project, without a huge budget.
BC
-
Your opinion (P1's only issue is that their backs are supported/last for long) is highly respected, but I want to see all experienced MF makers to make it through the future and contribute their experience in advancing imaging to a higher level... IMO,
It's sad to see P1 shrinking in a large sensor market that is growing so rapidly and is expected to grow more in the near future (perhaps to non predicted and surprising high levels).... It's not only that P1 doesn't offer video (yet) in their products, in addition to that, they also are the only MF makers (along with Pentax) that don't supply optics for (serious) motion picture productions. Other than that, their software doesn't support "true color" data which are much superior in quality for still subjects...
In a world of imaging full of collaborations and "joining forces" as to face the future, Phase seems to be restricted only to some tasks where competition does as well and may be a part that some DSLRs are also capable of performing... This certainly has never being (traditionally) the idea behind MF....
IMO, Phase has to fully revise their policies against the market (other than the pricing policies):
1. They need to integrate HQ video in their products (possibly through seeking for a collaboration with an existing experienced maker)
2. They need to add a high quality video plug in to their software
3. They need to allow access to the software for all other makers
4. They need to add support to true color files to their software and to the cultural Heritage too.
5. They need to add (at least) a "true color" back for stills in their line of backs.
6. They need to "open" the XF platform to as many of the existing base of backs as possible (if it was up to me, I would even consider having a version of the camera with interchangeable plates for C645, Hasselblad H, V & Hy-6 backs) ...it's a beautiful platform, why restrict access to it?
MF Mirrorless? No! ...my opinion is that Fuji (and perhaps another or two future new comers) will "eat them alive" if they ever enter that area.... Phase doesn't have a name as "heavy" as Hasselblad as to hope to compete on a higher price, even if they can match X1D's price (which I doubt).
Anyway, lets hope that Phase has something in its sleeve...
-
Yes, Theo, I was well aware of the attempts with Contax. And I had been told some reasons why it just couldn't happen. It's a shame Contax could not hang around or be resurrected.
Sorry, more thread drift:
Out of curiosity, are the roadblocks to a Contax resurrection described somewhere? Brand/IP tied up by someone unwilling to sell? Tooling destroyed?
-
Sorry, more thread drift:
Out of curiosity, are the roadblocks to a Contax resurrection described somewhere? Brand/IP tied up by someone unwilling to sell? Tooling destroyed?
My information (at the days) coming from a P1 representative, is that P1 agreed with Zeiss, but it was Kyocera that refused... It was the bad relations between Kyocera and Zeiss that blocked the deal...
-
Sorry, more thread drift:
Out of curiosity, are the roadblocks to a Contax resurrection described somewhere? Brand/IP tied up by someone unwilling to sell? Tooling destroyed?
It's a shame because Contax is gone and I have 4 of them nearly double of every lens made, except the 350mm. I love the camera, but they're old and for some work in studio or in controlled lighting and movement ok.
Newer cameras have surpassed them. The new Phase One and Hasselblad are just better, smoother and easier.
Honestly if I was in the mood to buy into a new medium format system, I wouldn't care about sticking a $30,000 back on my contax.
Theo,
Do you shoot "video", because if you do and you try to stream high bit rate 24 to 48fps out of a 645 sensor in 14 bit it takes a big camera or a big mechanical fan.
Maybe someday someone will get there but it's not out there yet and RED has pretty deep pockets, Arri's must be deeper and both have incredible knowledge about cinema cameras.
When RED made a smaller camera it had a smaller than super 35mm (aps C) sensor. The heat build up and processing power is really immense in high quality motion footage.
You can point to Fuji or Sony and say they do it, but in reality they don't. The codec is highly compressed, the bit rate is 10 not 12 or 14 and the color spread is 1/2 the available colors (422) not all the colors, (444).
When Leica added video to their cmos camera they cropped into it. Imagine cropping into a 100 mpx camera to get 4 or 6 k. I'm not going to do the math, but come one, you probably talking a crop factor of 2 or 2.5 which makes a 50mm lens a medium telephoto.
Once again maybe it will happen, but I would bet that 90% of the people Medium format sells to couldn't care less about video from their cameras and if they did, another 6 grand will get them a decent result from a dedicated system.
Trust me on this. Shooting a good parallel production of stills and motion footage is hard, not just with cameras, but lights, crew, power, time.
I have zero inside information, but I would bet the issues Phase One faces is they make high quality, long lasting professional equipment for a toss it in 12 months world.
I hope that's not true, but I'll bet it is.
IMO
BC
-
It's a shame because Contax is gone and I have 4 of them nearly double of every lens made, except the 350mm. I love the camera, but they're old and for some work in studio or in controlled lighting and movement ok.
Newer cameras have surpassed them. The new Phase One and Hasselblad are just better, smoother and easier.
Honestly if I was in the mood to buy into a new medium format system, I wouldn't care about sticking a $30,000 back on my contax.
I have a similar Contax system as yours and use a Sinarback 54H and a Hasselblad CF-39MS on it... What I would like added, is mechanical mirror lock up (so that it would last the whole multishot sequence) & then a modern rechargeable battery... nothing else... To me the camera is no more than a "black box"....
Theo,
Do you shoot "video", because if you do and you try to stream high bit rate 24 to 48fps out of a 645 sensor in 14 bit it takes a big camera or a big mechanical fan.
Maybe someday someone will get there but it's not out there yet and RED has pretty deep pockets, Arri's must be deeper and both have incredible knowledge about cinema cameras.
When RED made a smaller camera it had a smaller than super 35mm (aps C) sensor. The heat build up and processing power is really immense in high quality motion footage.
You can point to Fuji or Sony and say they do it, but in reality they don't. The codec is highly compressed, the bit rate is 10 not 12 or 14 and the color spread is 1/2 the available colors (422) not all the colors, (444).
When Leica added video to their cmos camera they cropped into it. Imagine cropping into a 100 mpx camera to get 4 or 6 k. I'm not going to do the math, but come one, you probably talking a crop factor of 2 or 2.5 which makes a 50mm lens a medium telephoto.
Once again maybe it will happen, but I would bet that 90% of the people Medium format sells to couldn't care less about video from their cameras and if they did, another 6 grand will get them a decent result from a dedicated system.
Trust me on this. Shooting a good parallel production of stills and motion footage is hard, not just with cameras, but lights, crew, power, time.
I have zero inside information, but I would bet the issues Phase One faces is they make high quality, long lasting professional equipment for a toss it in 12 months world.
I hope that's not true, but I'll bet it is.
IMO
BC
No, I don't use video myself, but I often work with people that do when there is documentaries made for ancient monuments and ancient Byzantine monasteries (for which I do the internal & external architectural and wall paintings part of the project)...
I know what is required for professional motion picture making though and have being working with people that use tilt/shift in their filming and even shared my experience on the matter with them...
IMO, the digital back, will make the "perfect" motion picture platform for the future... it will allow for use on a bellows camera, it will have big size sensors, it will be the most versatile as to use associated equipment with it...
Hasselblad has realized that and have been serioulsy working on the matter, Leica has realized that and made a start dedicated to Sinar bellows cameras, which no doubt will have a future... Alpa has realized that and thought "lets make a collaboration with Hasselblad as to use their backs on our platform", Horseman has realized that (with the TS pro) and even foreseen the future before all the rest... (perhaps ahead of their time). The sooner P1 will realize the same, the better for them too... Just my two cents (and opinion)....
-
snip
No, I don't use video myself, but
snip
Theo,
You are one stubborn guy.
Maybe this is what you are referring to:
https://www.cinema5d.com/medium-format-video-coming-external-footage-phase-one-xf-iq3/
But take a moment before you just comment and read between the lines. None of these "announcements" talk about the real world.
Bit rate...not mega bits but mega bites per second, not real bit depth, not the crop factor. I think the leica is 2.5 or down to super 35mm, which in reality is smaller than aps c.
I know you don't like Phase one . . . heck we all know that, but they can't turn a medium format camera into a motion picture machine.
It just doesn't happen and if it could as I posted before look at the size of an Arri, or for that matter hold an epic in your hand for 12 hours.
They're big, heavy and serve a purpose, but they are for motion, not still files.
IMO
BC
P.S. I hate camera discussions, but this time Theo, I think your wrong.
In fact the move is to film
http://nofilmschool.com/2016/09/should-you-shoot-16mm
for that special look, not 65mm digital which holds very little more than the standard offerings.
Check this movie out, by not old but young film makers. Off the scale and they always shoot film on a panavision 35mm camera. http://www.midnightspecialmovie.com/
-
Theo,
You are one stubborn guy.
I just can't understand your attitude... You have your opinion, I have mine... Who's been proved correct up to now? I don't "like P1" has nothing to do with P1 as a company... MO is that "they don't do things" ...they have a policy of providing DSLR alternatives (and ask to much money on top) up to now... That's why my suggestions... (IMO) ;)
-
I think that they've added the Leaf look to the IQ backs further indicates that there will be no new Leaf products and no Credo 100. The Leaf users can now simply move to IQ series and still have the look they prefer. I see no other business reason for Phase One to add Leaf looks to the IQ other than making it easier for Leaf users to take the jump.
Leaf ICC profiles had a different format than Phase One profiles, as the original Leaf Capture software had a different color pipeline. If I remember correctly, with Leaf the raw data is first converted via a matrix profile (embedded in the raw) to ProPhoto primaries and then the ICC profile is applied, while Phase One applies it directly to the raw data. That alternative pipeline was integrated to Capture One and used only for Leaf backs, that way they could use the original Leaf profiles. I wonder if they in this case have reformatted the Leaf look into the traditional Phase One ICC format, or if they still use the "Leaf Capture color pipeline" for those. If they have reformatted them there could theoretically still be some minor look differences.
An additional source to look difference is white balance presets (if used). The exact tint of "Daylight", "Flash" etc presets can differ quite much between manufacturers. For example if you're a landscape photographer used to shooting with Leaf's daylight preset that may or may not be kept in the IQ back so you may or may not get the same tint (I don't know how they've done regarding that).
The Leaf "ProPhotoRGB" profile changes very little from the base matrix conversion in the color pipeline, I guess that's why it's called "Prophoto". It's also the least subjective profile, and ironically it seems to be very popular. And sure if you know your post-processing it's nice to start off with something neutral.
I've had a look at those "LF5" profiles, and they look like they are based on the LF4 ones (Credo 50 - CMOS). Some ICC header fields are different though, I suspect one of them act as a switch so that part of the Leaf processing pipeline is bypassed. That would mean the dozen of Credo 50 profiles could easily be made available to IQ CMOS users.
Regarding Leaf future, I find it odd P1 labeled those 2 new profiles following Leaf convention (Aptus II -> LF2 ; Credo CCD -> LF3 ; Leaf 50MP CMOS -> LF4 ; LF5 -> ?? ). Actually it's making me optimistic about some new Leaf products...
On a side note, the IQ3-100MP profiles are really way, way better than the defaults ones for my IQ260. Once adjusted for saturation and contrast they provide a much cleaner and neutral basis, in line with calibration results from dcamprof or basiccolor.
Attached is a simple comparison to show you how blatant the differences are. The crop is from a pic taken with the IQ260, developed using the different profiles. Where P1 support didn't see any issue with the yellowness of the stock profiles, I do see a real problem here ???
-
Interesting comparison! Do you think that there still is a need for further Leaf products, or is it okay just providing the "Leaf look" this way to IQ product range?
I'm also not a big fan of the yellow look, but on the other hand I get emails now and then from Capture One users that think DCamProf's profiles aren't yellow enough (they can be made yellow if one like though)... so it's a thing of taste :)
I've had a look at those "LF5" profiles, and they look like they are based on the LF4 ones (Credo 50 - CMOS). Some ICC header fields are different though, I suspect one of them act as a switch so that part of the Leaf processing pipeline is bypassed. That would mean the dozen of Credo 50 profiles could easily be made available to IQ CMOS users.
Regarding Leaf future, I find it odd P1 labeled those 2 new profiles following Leaf convention (Aptus II -> LF2 ; Credo CCD -> LF3 ; Leaf 50MP CMOS -> LF4 ; LF5 -> ?? ). Actually it's making me optimistic about some new Leaf products...
On a side note, the IQ3-100MP profiles are really way, way better than the defaults ones for my IQ260. Once adjusted for saturation and contrast they provide a much cleaner and neutral basis, in line with calibration results from dcamprof or basiccolor.
Attached is a simple comparison to show you how blatant the differences are. The crop is from a pic taken with the IQ260, developed using the different profiles. Where P1 support didn't see any issue with the yellowness of the stock profiles, I do see a real problem here ???