Eric,
OK, here goes:
First, the Given in the equation: I want a single digital back to be adaptable between a Technical Camera and a street/everyday use camera. I'll roam distant cities with a MFDB on a body like the Leaf AFI in mid day, then in the evening take the back off and put it on a Cambo for my landscape shot. I want the sharpest, most detailed and balanced image possible off of both camera bodies/back combos.
Now to your questions:
All test were run at the respective backs lowest ISO as I always shoot on tripod (landscape scenes).
Thus at lowest ISO I see less noise, particularly in the red channel on the Leaf. This is checking at the Pixel Level. I can't say for other ISO's as I very rarely go there.
Next, I have processed all test images in two ways before reaching MY judgement:
1. With each respective companies OWN RAW developer - and here is where Phase blows away Leaf on tool set and controls, but the final image from the Leaf RAW file actually looked better after I took each into CS3 and finished tweaking them.
2. With Lightroom - thus each RAW file is process with the same tool/algorithm.
Sharpness - here I mean both the general overall look of the image and detail in the fine areas - viewed at Pixel Level. Leaf definitely shows far more fine detail than the Phase after sharpening - it's the glass in my judgement, not just the sensor. This was confirmed by my testing the Phase P45+ on a Cambo.
The images are just sharper with Schneider digital glass in front of the sensor as compare to Mamiya. (I just purchased a Cambo with Schneider 35 Digitar as a results of my tests of a couple of weeks ago - should be here tomorrow - but I have yet to decide what back I'll mate it to!) To my understanding, the Leaf/Rollie 80 lenses are the same, thus I can support your comment about Rollie 80 quality from testing the Leaf.
In closing, I've also owned the H1 and H2 with the P45 and P45+ respectively. The camera user definable controls (User created Presets, mirror delay, Zone System, etc.) on the H series are to my working style the best and the camera fits my hands the best with the Leaf a very close second and the Phase not acceptable. But as I've said elsewhere, I find the Hasseblad back not having it's own power supply, thus limiting its ability to be used on a Cambo or Alpa in an elegant and simple fashing (Before someone tells me again: Yes, I know you can with the clunky adapter, another battery, Linhof sliding back, image bank, etc. BUT that's not elegant for a 62 year old chap back packing across the terrain from a weight, bulk and set up time perspective!)
I find it fascinating that ALL of the choices we have, Hasselblad, Leaf, Phase, Sinar have compromises! NO one company has hit it all right, from my landscape shooter perspective! From a camera body feature set IF I ignore the desire to shoot on a Technical camera with Rodenstock/Schneider lenses (and I've tested them as well and they are better than the H-series) Hasselblad is my winner. But I doubt that I will ignore wanting to use a Tech camera or the extra detail that I get from Rodenstock/Schneider glass since I don't have to with Leaf. I have considered testing out the Hasselblad HTS 1.5 BUT I already know that I prefer the images from Schneider and Rodenstock more than the H lenses.
In closing, what screws up the equations total is the price delta between Hasselblad's new price structure and Leaf/Phase/Sinar prices. Until Leaf/Phase/Sinar get their acts in order, I'll hold off parting from my cash in todays economy!
As photography has always been my Mistress, rather than what feeds me, the cost of the adventure truly is a serious deciding factor for me and will dictate the direction of my final decision!
Jack
PS: I'm taking the next 4 days to be in the field shooting to see what other than test images will be produced by the Leaf AFi 7.
Lust4Life,
Thanks for sharing your test results with us. When you say Leaf is showing less noise than the phase - do you mean at high ISO, base ISO or all ISOs? And did you use the leaf software and the phase software to handle the files or did you use something like lightroom that does both files the same? When you talk about sharpness are you meaning fine detail? After you play with the files which one shows the most fine detail? And how much of the difference is due to the difference in the lenses? I know the rollei schneider 80mm PQS lens is fantastic.
Thanks,
Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226231\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
