first i have to say that i have owned a leaf (valeo) back in the past and now own a phase back...and the descision to switch was made after long testing and working with the files from both backs and was finally based on combination of file quality and workflow...i never had any problems with the leaf files, i got my leaf back, because i liked the look of the files better, 2 years later, the newer phase backs ion combination with C1 gave me the better solution...
i honestly would never buy anything based on a pdf provided by one company...all backs out there have pros and cons and to say that one is better than the other is BS, one might work better for you, but another for me...there are so many variables...
i found myself laughing because i saw so much more digital junk in the leaf files in some of the close-ups of the eyebrows and the skin tones were way too red for me (on a calibrated eizo) on the leaf...i know (from working with) that most of the "problems" shown can be fixed with C1, easily...and that C1 actually has way superiour color managing built in, so i really cannot follow the comparison and the conclusions...i have never had color problem with phase...or with leaf for that matter...the whole thing is really silly, i cannot imagine audi coming out with a 50page comparison on why and in which ways their A4 is better then the bmw 3series...maybe they would, but it would so clearly be advertising, that nobody would take their results seriously....
i am by no means a phase fan or devotee, on th contrary, i believe that the dalso chip is in many ways better than the kodak and phase has been hyped (especially in the US) as the only solution, which again is just marketing...maybe that is why leaf thought they had to come up with something...
when i owned my leaf back i constantly had issues with their software...not that it wasn't working, but the version available(V8) was stable but a mess and i had to work with betas of V10 most of the time...which was also stable, but a beta and still nowhere close to C1....the reason i worked with the beta, because for the whole time i had my back, the final version was "coming out next month"...it took 18 months...
if i would buy a back now i would take a very good look at the eyelike back with sinar software...dalsa chip with buffer (for fast shooting) great display (but small) and solid,proven (but not as good as C1) and it can be used on any camera with adapters...
from my experience, all back give you amazing files and with all the software out there nobody should have a problem getting great results with any of these files...there are a lot of other factors to consider (workflow!, speed, how many cameras can i use it on, iso performance,...) in the end i would strongly recommend to really work with the different back before making a purchase...
plus: some of the "facts" about the phase feature stated in the comparison are simply wrong...