Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaf vs Phase One comparison..  (Read 10391 times)
SeanBK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 484


« on: May 30, 2006, 03:44:22 PM »
ReplyReply

This is very detailed & impressive comparison...though it does not surprise me of the results.

http://www.leaf-photography.com/files/Leaf_vs_Phase_2006.pdf
Logged
BlasR
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 30, 2006, 04:52:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know about that.

BlasR
Logged

pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 30, 2006, 07:34:37 PM »
ReplyReply

I also did a test with the  Leaf Aptus 75 against the Phase One P45. I went with the Leaf Aptus 75.

I now have the Aptus 22 why I wait for delivery of my Aptus 75. When I did my test I saw some of the same thing in the Leaf test as I did in my own test. I really like the Leaf digital back files over the Phaseone.

A few small problems I am having with Leaf, starting with my delivery date of my Aptus 75 and the software. I was told I would get my back in May or June. Now I am being told July or Aug. I was not too happy to hear that.  I was also told the leaf software would work on the new Intel Macs. I can now tell you Leaf is wrong about the software working. When I called Leaf to ask, I was now told its not working on the new macs. Great I have a new 17inch Macbook Pro I cannot use. Leaf did say when I purchased the back they should have the new software for the Intel Macs by June. Lets wait and see. Leaf history with software has been a little off.

I can't wait for the day I can shoot with my Leaf Aptus 75 on my new Intel Mac
Logged
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 30, 2006, 10:58:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I also did a test with the  Leaf Aptus 75 against the Phase One P45. I went with the Leaf Aptus 75.

 I was also told the leaf software would work on the new Intel Macs. I can now tell you Leaf is wrong about the software working. When I called Leaf to ask, I was now told its not working on the new macs. Great I have a new 17inch Macbook Pro I cannot use. Leaf did say when I purchased the back they should have the new software for the Intel Macs by June. Lets wait and see. Leaf history with software has been a little off.

I can't wait for the day I can shoot with my Leaf Aptus 75 on my new Intel Mac
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Regardless of preferences, the test that Leaf posted can't be believed. How can a test that is hosted by the "winner" have any credibility? Files between Phase One and Leaf are very, very close. We sell Leaf (and Sinar and Hasselblad), but not Phase One. And despite my own opinions about the quality comparison between a Leaf and Phase One back, I will not be promoting this test to any of my customers. It would be all too easy for me to promote that test and go "See, I told you Leaf was better!" But I won't because that would be misleading, and I won't insult my customers, who are too smart for that kind of "test" anyway.  I also don't believe default settings should ever be used to test a product with. 90% of end users do not use default settings when capturing. If you want to see the best a product can do, have someone who knows the product backwards and forwards show you with the appropriate settings for the particular subject.

Regarding intel-compatible software for Leaf, I've been told to expect it by July. Yes - that's later than they had initially stated, like many things with Leaf these days.

Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
Logged

Steve Hendrix
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2006, 07:48:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm looking forward to seeing the comparison. I'm on the road at the moment and limted to dial-up, so the 24MB+ files is impossible for me to download. Soon though.

Part of the reason I'm curious (was there any doubt who the "winner" would be, given who published it?) is that I will be spending 4 days in the coastal mountains of British Columbia, beginning in about 10 days, working with an Aptus 75 alongside a Phase One P45. My shooting companion will be Leaf technical support person (and fine photographer) Ray Maxwell. This will ensure that our file processing is optimum, and that I don't miss any tricks. After 3 years of owning Phase One backs I'm familar enough with the backs and Phase software that I can fairly represent it on the other side.

I hope to have this field comparison online here before the end of June.

BTW, just use Leaf Capture 8.4.2 until version 10 is made Universal Binary. That's what I'm doing. Or use Rawshooter, or Camera Raw.

Michael
Logged
ericstaud
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 384


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2006, 10:57:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been using 8.4.2 to get the files into the computer when tethered, have bridge in the foreground, and the file pops right up.  On my loaner Aptus22 the color was WAY off in bridge.  It could not be fixed with the Color temerature and Hue.  I shot a Macbeth chart and ran Tom Fors ACR Calibration script.  Now the colors are great.

-Eric
Logged
Ed Jack
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #6 on: May 31, 2006, 11:53:02 AM »
ReplyReply

If the 33MP Dalsa chip does indeed turn out to be noticeably "better" than the Kodak 39Mp chip, is it concievable that Phase One would engineer this into a new back, or does their recent focus on use of Kodak chips make a re-engineering of the P-serries necessary - probably prohibitively expensive (Even if they may well be loosing alot of business to Leaf - I don't have the sales figures of P45 Vs A75). When I say "Better", I mean in the priority areas of DR (highlight control) and colours.
Logged
pixjohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 648


WWW
« Reply #7 on: May 31, 2006, 02:13:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you mean you can use 8.4.2 on a Macbook Pro? Every time I try to use it, the software crashes or tells me no camera connect.  I can use Camera Raw, but I like to shoot tethered. I also see a big difference in the noise level in camera raw that I do not see in the Leaf software for longer exposures.

Quote
BTW, just use Leaf Capture 8.4.2 until version 10 is made Universal Binary. That's what I'm doing. Or use Rawshooter, or Camera Raw.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4731



« Reply #8 on: May 31, 2006, 02:42:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, I'm now back on a broadband connection, and have downloaded and read the 'comparison".

All I can say is that coming from one company, about another company's product, the entire thing has to be viewed with caution. Maybe the results are as shown, but considering where they're from it's hard to imagine that there isn't a single area in which the Phase product proved to be equal, let alone superior to the Leaf.

But, such is marketing. I'm now even more curious to do my own tests.

Who knows, I may have to "trade-up". We'll see,

Michael
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3648



WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 31, 2006, 05:15:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I'm now back on a broadband connection, and have downloaded and read the 'comparison".

All I can say is that coming from one company, about another company's product, the entire thing has to be viewed with caution. Maybe the results are as shown, but considering where they're from it's hard to imagine that there isn't a single area in which the Phase product proved to be equal, let alone superior to the Leaf.

But, such is marketing. I'm now even more curious to do my own tests.

Who knows, I may have to "trade-up". We'll see,

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67035\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The reason I bought my Canon cameras (I shot Nikon before) is that Canon put up images from the 1Ds and later 1DsII. I must admit that the cameras which I got from them did everything the sample imagery promised, and in fact the waxy skin tone of the 1DsII was visible in the sample, and the excellent resolution of the samples was matched by my own cameras. It was absolute truth in advertising. When I had a noise problem on the 1ds, Canon brought it to standard, and the remarkable noiselesness of the 1DsII samples is actually what my camera turns out !

I would wish the back manufacturers did the same: Put the camera in a studio or outdoors with somebody used to those shoots, adjust levels and curves and then publish the resulting files. Let the buyers then decide what they want, and use the pricing lever to move the cameras. We don't need marketing "comparisons", or hype - we're the guys who make the hype!

Edmund
Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 31, 2006, 05:50:10 PM »
ReplyReply

All of this shows,how important it is to do your own testing.
The only problem is to find a dealer that has all of the backs,Sinar,Phase Leaf and Imacon.
By the looks of it,PPR Digital is one of those.
Here in Sydney,Baltronics represents Sinar and Leaf.
L&P has Phase,and CR.Kennedys has Hasselblad Imacon.

Funny that they all say their backs are the best!

Cheers,

Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 31, 2006, 05:54:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Funny that they all say their backs are the best!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What long term business prospect is there in that market segment for a company that is not the best?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7526



WWW
« Reply #12 on: May 31, 2006, 05:58:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I will be spending 4 days in the coastal mountains of British Columbia, beginning in about 10 days, working with an Aptus 75 alongside a Phase One P45.

...

I hope to have this field comparison online here before the end of June.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=66997\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael,

That's great news again. Looking forward to this article.

Regards,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #13 on: May 31, 2006, 05:58:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Bernard,

I'm fully aware of that,and I'm pretty sure each of those backs and software ,create great images!

That why one should do their own testing!

Cheers,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
pprdigital
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #14 on: May 31, 2006, 07:19:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All of this shows,how important it is to do your own testing.
The only problem is to find a dealer that has all of the backs,Sinar,Phase Leaf and Imacon.
By the looks of it,PPR Digital is one of those.
Here in Sydney,Baltronics represents Sinar and Leaf.
L&P has Phase,and CR.Kennedys has Hasselblad Imacon.

Funny that they all say their backs are the best!

Cheers,

Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67051\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Willem:

Well, close, but we do not sell Phase One. We are Phase Oneless. But we do quite well with the others.

Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
Logged

Steve Hendrix
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #15 on: May 31, 2006, 07:36:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Willem:

Well, close, but we do not sell Phase One. We are Phase Oneless. But we do quite well with the others.

Thanks,
Steve Hendrix
PPR Digital
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Steve!
Any secrets you can share with me?
Cheers,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 727


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 01, 2006, 10:32:28 AM »
ReplyReply

The Phase P45 files were presumably processed by/for Leaf without the benefit of the latest Capture One software, and it has been apparent from the comments of Charles Cramer and others that the earlier iteration(s) of the software had a tendency to smear fine detail under certain circumstances.  This may explain the obvious inferiority of the P45 file compared to the Aptus 75 at least in terms of fine detail. As for the overall "look" of the two files in terms of more subjective matters of interpretation like color balance and dimensionality, well the Aptus 75 sure does look a lot better to my eyes. If these differences are also apparent in Michael's upcoming comparison, this will dispel the understanding of many/most of us that the differences among the MFDBs of the various manufacturers were minor and at the margins.
BTW, while this comparative test by Leaf has to be taken with a grain of salt because it is not "independent", it is a shot across Phase's and Imacon/Hasselblad's bows, and they can put up or shut up with their own tests. (Too bad Leaf did not give us the raw files from its test.)
Logged

pss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 960


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 01, 2006, 01:17:11 PM »
ReplyReply

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...
Logged

Lester
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 146


« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2006, 11:06:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I agree, with today software, there is no reason why the Phase One cannot stand up to the leaf. This is coming from a person that trying to get a deal on a leaf 75. If Leaf compare their latest software to Phase One latest software, the test would be about the same. If you compare today Dual-cord Mac G5 with yesterday Intel P3 chip, guess who would be faster?
The best thing is test for yourself and buy the one you like the most. I did not like the P45 the most, but now I love it.




Quote
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...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67116\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

I am a old fart, over 60
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad