New from Leaf

[PenGun]

80 MP back for medium and large format. About $32,000.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.asp

[Matus Kalisky]

The size is still a bit smaller than 645 film frame, so not really a large format back. I do not doubt the performance though.

[yaya]

The size is still a bit smaller than 645 film frame, so not really a large format back. I do not doubt the performance though.

In digital terms this is as big as it gets:-) The sensor covers the full viewing area of a 645 viewfinder...

I've put a few full size jpegs on my iDisk, sorry only one of them was shot on an LF camera (Linhof M679, Rodenstock 90mm/5.6 Digaron-W)

files.me.com/yshahar/sit38e
files.me.com/yshahar/ppeag6
files.me.com/yshahar/upmus9

Comments and questions are welcome

Yair
__________________
Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Leaf Imaging Ltd.
email (ysh@leaf-photography.com) | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.leaf-photography.com | Leaf, a Phase One company

[ic-racer]

$32,000...film never looked so good as now!

[Kirk Gittings]

When I was shooting film commercially, I spent upwards of 10K a year on film and processing. So in a commercial studio this is doable with a three year depreciation.

In all honesty though the 80mb file size is total overkill for commercial architecture-as was 4x5 film. But I would love to have it for shooting landscape.

[Daniel Stone]

well, after looking at the middle file(files.me.com/yshahar/ppeag6),

looking at the fine details, it appears pretty darn good. Now, these aren't full-size RAW files, but for a fine artist(with lots of $$$), or a commercial shooter needing LOTS of fine detail, then this could be a great piece of equipment.

thankfully these large(ish) sensors don't seem to be replaced by a newer model every 18-24mo like the DSLR's do ;).

but then you have to have the best lenses to really maximize the potential with these sensors, and those lenses(like the 90mm 5.6 Digisaur-whatever :D) don't come cheap either...

looks like it'll continue to be 8x10 and 4x5 for me from now on... just need to get a drum scanner(to maximize the potential available from my negs ;)), and those don't come cheap either....

-Dan

[Ken Lee]

"Comments and questions are welcome"

The photo of the park outside London, is particularly impressive with regards to detail and color fidelity.

For a color photograph, it encompasses a wide dynamic range - and demonstrates a great technical accomplishment - but as a "fine art" shooter of primarily B&W film, I can't help notice some noise in the low values, and that the white clouds lack texture. For some of us, it's all about the tones (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/larger/).

That aside: if you're looking for someone to further "test" the equipment, you can send me a sample :)

[tbirke]

Would be nice to see the night / twilight capabilities!

[yaya]

Would be nice to see the night / twilight capabilities!

I'll do my best to produce more images in different environments over the next few weeks so I'll post them here

cheers

yair

[yaya]

"Comments and questions are welcome"

The photo of the park outside London, is particularly impressive with regards to detail and color fidelity.

For a color photograph, it encompasses a wide dynamic range - and demonstrates a great technical accomplishment - but as a "fine art" shooter of primarily B&W film, I can't help notice some noise in the low values, and that the white clouds lack texture. For some of us, it's all about the tones (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/larger/).

That aside: if you're looking for someone to further "test" the equipment, you can send me a sample :)

Talking about B&W, I've loaded a full size jpeg image of a tree to my iDisk

This is a straight B&W conversion in Leaf Capture, no channel mixing or anything like that...

I wonder what your view on it would be?

Here's the: link (https://files.me.com/yshahar/tgi8kc)

thanks, yair

[Ken Lee]

Yair -

That image shows high resolution, and no noise - it's great - but because the subject itself is in bright sunshine, many of the leaves (like the clouds in the aforementioned photo) are plain white.

I don't mean to criticize the accomplishment. I'm a software engineer myself, so I have a sense about how many geniuses, and how much effort, it has taken to bring digital capture to this level.

Again I would politely refer you to some of these (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/larger/) larger images, which show a more evocative range of tone and fidelity - keeping in mind that they have been downsized considerably to fit on a web browser. Many members of this forum could provide images of similar, if not greater, breadth. We use technology which hasn't changed much since the 1930's.

Here's one (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/10.html) I made 2 days ago, with a subject brightness range of at least 13 f/stops.

And again, if you would like someone to make a few more evocative images with your equipment, I'd be delighted to volunteer :)

[mdd99]

In technology, everything is quickly getting cheaper, once the novelty has worn off. In two years, this will probably cost $16K or less.


80 MP back for medium and large format. About $32,000.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10092012leafaptusII12.asp

[mdd99]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.


Yair -

That image shows high resolution, and no noise - it's great - but because the subject itself is in bright sunshine, many of the leaves (like the clouds in the aforementioned photo) are plain white.

I don't mean to criticize the accomplishment. I'm a software engineer myself, so I have a sense about how many geniuses, and how much effort, it has taken to bring digital capture to this level.

Again I would politely refer you to some of these (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/larger/) larger images, which show a more evocative range of tone and fidelity - keeping in mind that they have been downsized considerably to fit on a web browser. Many members of this forum could provide images of similar, if not greater, breadth. We use technology which hasn't changed much since the 1930's.

Here's one (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/10.html) I made 2 days ago, with a subject brightness range of at least 13 f/stops.

And again, if you would like someone to make a few more evocative images with your equipment, I'd be delighted to volunteer :)

[Brian Ellis]

$32,000...film never looked so good as now!

These things aren't made for you and I or probably anyone still using film. They're made for commercial photographers whose clients pay for them. A few years ago a friend of mine who's a commercial photographer bought something similar. He said it paid for itself with one catalog job. I think he's still using it and that was at least five years ago so by now it's paid for itself many times over.

[Ken Lee]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

So true !

I merely point out that to demonstrate the potential of such a wonderful instrument, the manufacturer should enlist the talents of a real virtuoso.

However, because no real virtuoso has stepped forward... I volunteer instead :)

[Brian Ellis]

So true !

I merely point out that to demonstrate the potential of such a wonderful instrument, the manufacturer should enlist the talents of a real virtuoso.

However, because no real virtuoso has stepped forward... I volunteer instead :)

Since any photography equipment that costs $32,000 doesn't interest me I haven't gone to the link. But how can you evaluate any photograph from a technical standpoint on a computer monitor? Wouldn't you need to see a print to know what it can really do?

[Peter Mounier]

It would be nice to see the images, but the links don't go anywhere anymore.
I guess the discussion is just for the few that have seen this thread from the beginning.

Peter

[Ken Lee]

Since any photography equipment that costs $32,000 doesn't interest me I haven't gone to the link. But how can you evaluate any photograph from a technical standpoint on a computer monitor? Wouldn't you need to see a print to know what it can really do?

People like us have perfectly calibrated equipment: what we see on the monitor, matches what we see in the final print. ;) (Just kidding)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't printers have a more restricted gamut than monitors - as well as a narrower dynamic range ?

If that's the case, then what we see in a final print, will be only a limited view of what the sensor can capture, and what a good monitor can show. That's why scanner software like VueScan - and image editing software like Photoshop - have built-in tools to show colors that are out of gamut. Mine is configured to show those values in lime green.

I may be mistaken, but the subject usually has the widest range of colors and tones, and the sensor captures a slice of that. The monitor shows a reduced portion of that capture. Finally, the print reveals a narrower slice of that.

[Brian Ellis]

People like us have perfectly calibrated equipment: what we see on the monitor, matches what we see in the final print. ;) (Just kidding)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't printers have a more restricted gamut than monitors - as well as a narrower dynamic range ?

If that's the case, then what we see in a final print, will be only a limited view of what the sensor can capture, and what a good monitor can show. That's why scanner software like VueScan - and image editing software like Photoshop - have built-in tools to show colors that are out of gamut. Mine is configured to show those values in lime green.

I may be mistaken, but the subject usually has the widest range of colors and tones, and the sensor captures a slice of that. The monitor shows a reduced portion of that capture. Finally, the print reveals a narrower slice of that.

I wasn't thinking so much of color matching or out-of-gamut colors, which are unimportant in this context since we don't know or care what the original subject looked like and we're not planning to make a print from whatever images were shown in the link, but rather of the difference between viewing an image on a low resolution device like a computer monitor and a print from a high resolution device like a good printer. Aren't we probably viewing it on our monitors at something like 100 ppi whereas we'd likely be making at print at something like 300 ppi? I would have thought that difference affected perceptions of detail but then I'm no computer/printer expert.

[Ken Lee]

We can zoom in and out, and see the image at any resolution we like.

[Brian Ellis]

We can zoom in and out, and see the image at any resolution we like.

I'm not sure what you mean. No matter how you zoom in and out, I think you're still viewing the image at your monitor's resolution, which as I understand it is typically around 100 - 110 ppi with today's monitors.

[Ken Lee]

Isn't judging the quality of a sensor by one person's print, many steps removed ?

By that point, aren't we judging the combined effect of the entire work flow: not only the paper, ink, mat board, framing, glass, display lighting - but also the many aesthetic decisions made by the artists using an editing tool ?

Wouldn't engineers who measure the performance of sensors, do so as directly as possible - rather than as indirectly as possible ?

[yaya]

We now have a few samples viewable on our website. There are more coming soon...

Link to Leaf site, click on "sample images" (http://www.leaf-photography.com/products_aptus212.asp)

I agree real judgment should be made by looking at prints, but for many applications these day, hi res files never get printed and end up living on servers to be viewed by scientists, researchers, government and military people and of course the public...

yair