Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Leaf Valeo 6  (Read 8148 times)
adam tracksler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« on: April 15, 2009, 02:50:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Looking passively into getting a MF system, I have seen some Leaf Valeo 6 backs for pretty short money and was wondering if they were any good. Right now I'm using a 5D system. Most of my work is studio product and food shots. Some architecture...

I have no MF Bodies or lenses right now, so I'm not locked into anything. Just looking to get into it for some short money.

Thanks in advance.
Logged
Kumar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 659


WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2009, 02:59:45 AM »
ReplyReply

For studio product and food shots try the Eyelike backs. The M11s are going for only slightly more, and have multi-shot capability. For architecture, you'll need to shoot tethered to a laptop. If that's too much trouble, the 5D should serve quite well.
The Valeos are quite good as well, but are only single-shot, though more portable than the Eyelike.

Cheers,
Kumar
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 03:00:05 AM by Kumar » Logged

mcfoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 938


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2009, 03:31:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: adam tracksler
Looking passively into getting a MF system, I have seen some Leaf Valeo 6 backs for pretty short money and was wondering if they were any good. Right now I'm using a 5D system. Most of my work is studio product and food shots. Some architecture...

I have no MF Bodies or lenses right now, so I'm not locked into anything. Just looking to get into it for some short money.

Thanks in advance.

Hi
We have used the Valeo 6 with very good results. However it is a 6MP 24x36 CMOS chip & the 5D, 5DII. D3 ect will out perform this back. I think Leaf is a great product but this is from 2001 & the ZD back will easily out perform this back also. I had a ZD camera & got great results from it but again it is a 2004 design. Digital moves fast & backs get out dated quickly.
Denis
Logged

Denis Montalbetti
Montalbetti+Campbell
www.montalbetticampbell.com
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 790


« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2009, 04:48:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't buy a back with anything less than 22mp or you'd be better off with a modern DSLR.
Logged
Carsten W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 606



WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2009, 04:57:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: amsp
Don't buy a back with anything less than 22mp or you'd be better off with a modern DSLR.

That's a bit dramatic. The CFV backs for example have a very good reputation and get better per-pixel quality than even the best DSLRs, at low ISO. I would say that starting with the 16MP square-sensor backs, everything could be considered, depending on exact needs.
Logged

Carsten W - Recent Photos
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2870


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2009, 09:12:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: amsp
Don't buy a back with anything less than 22mp or you'd be better off with a modern DSLR.

If you're not creating huge prints then the ability to use a true view camera, bright viewfinder, and a system known for tethered stability and simplicity can overwhelm the megapixel difference. For many applications and considerations a 6 megapixel (or 11, 16 etc) digital back view camera system will be far better than a 100 megapixel dSLR. True swings and tilts and ground glass viewing add a tactile dimension to product shooting that is hard to replicate in practice with a dSLR (anybody who says a dSLR tilt-swing lens gives you the same experience is kidding themselves).

When differentiating yourself from other studio photographers the professional appearance of a view camera, digital back, and tethered monitor should not be discounted as compared to many of the competition who might be shooting a 5D with a small lens. Most mid-tier art directors and other clients won't know the difference between an H5 and an H25; all they know is that you have a professional looking rig which can deliver very interesting looks (combination of the glass, the pixel fidelity, and the swing/tilt).

Add a Phase One H5, H10, H20, H25 to your to-look-at-list. They are supported in all versions of our software (considered by many to be the best tethering software available), are incredibly long lasting, and can be had at a very good price. If you'd like to know more about these backs, or to get pricing you can contact my company (see my signature).

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 09:12:45 AM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
amsp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 790


« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2009, 11:52:21 AM »
ReplyReply

John, my point exactly, I just didn't have the patience of writing as detailed as you  Buying a 6mp back today with prices being so reasonable for more modern backs, not to mention DSLRs, is a waste of money IMO. A 22mp or better with an LCD screen will give you much more usability and bang for the buck.
Logged
Doug Peterson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2870


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2009, 12:25:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
A view camera has a darker viewfinder than any 35mm or MF systems. I shot 4x5 for 10 years and focusing on the ground glass is more taxing than a reflex camera. Sold all 4x5 end of last year with no remorse.

Putting a 35mm frame size sensor on a 4x5 (true view camera) at this junction in time with current cameras is practically a joke. A lot of wasted real estate that helps no one when composing, most 4x5's don't have the tolerances for such a small frame. Sure people did it years back and maybe some still do but I think it's just plain silly. Shoot 4x5 film, use a larger sensor or a different camera choice to mount a 1x1.5in sensor to. Putting the 35mm sensor on a smaller "view camera" sky rockets the cost of the camera and lenses, i.e. Linhof and others.

Let's help "newcomers" find good, practical systems to use - not older hugely more hassle prone, and little future proof tech.

If the OP is shooting architecture a postage stamp on a 4x5 is pointless, just shoot 4x5 film, color neg is still a brilliant tool for a lot of architecture, Fuji makes 4x5 instant film. For product and food shooting, a Canon full frame with any of the tilt shift lenses will more than do, easier to implement, has tethered shooting and more, just a better choice than the 6MP digital backs. The 5D file will be better than a Valeo 6, H5, etc. in print.

I disagree.

First, the OP said he was mostly shooting tabletop, only "some" architecture

Second of all I said View Camera, not a 4x5. It would a much better choice to go with a mid-sized view camera more specifically designed for the sensor size and precision requirements of digital.

Third, most of these systems have a stitching sliding back adapter so you compose with nearly twice the frame size and nearly twice the resolution. Here are the specs with two shots:
H25: about 38 megapixels
H20: about 28 megapixels (oddly long aspect ratio)
H10: about 18 megapixels (oddly long aspect ratio)

Those megapixels will carry the dynamic range, sharpness, color fidelity, and noise-less shadows of medium format and would enlarge (if needed) quite well.

After reading your response I agree an H5 would not be a viable solution.

It's NOT the simplest solution, the fastest solution, or the easiest to use. It is however very viable, and quite reasonably priced. It adds swings, tilts, ground glass composition, great tethered shooting, excellent color fidelity, great dynamic range and low shadow noise. It also establishes a base from which the OP could later upgrade to more modern backs if he wanted.

I would argue that a mid-sized well-made view camera (especially if you buy it used at the ridiculous prices you can find them now) is one of the most future proof systems available. I think it's very very hard to predict what people will be shooting for photojournalism, sports, or fashion in a decade, but I strongly suspect mid-sized view cameras will still be used by many pros in still life and product shooting. Adapters/plates are available for just about any lens or imaging system.

My suggestion would be stupid for anything hand-held, action based, low light, high ISO or many areas where a 5D would kick it's ass. However, for the specific purpose the OP wants I would argue to my death than an H10, H20, H25 on a small view camera are all worthwhile to look at. Naturally I would never encourage him to buy on spec; he would need to test this setup in his studio with his workflow to see if it was manageable.

Keep in mind the OP already has a 5D. There are many reasons why still life / product shooters chose view cameras over SLRs in addition to the higher reproduction size and most of those reasons have not changed in digital.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________
Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Eizo & More
National: 877.217.9870  |  Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter: Read Latest or Sign Up
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 12:27:11 PM by dougpetersonci » Logged

DOUG PETERSON (dep@digitaltransitions.com), Digital Transitions
Dealer for Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Arca-Swiss, Cambo, Profoto
Office: 877.367.8537
Cell: 740.707.2183
Phase One IQ250 FAQ
yaya
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2009, 01:17:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: adam tracksler
Looking passively into getting a MF system, I have seen some Leaf Valeo 6 backs for pretty short money and was wondering if they were any good. Right now I'm using a 5D system. Most of my work is studio product and food shots. Some architecture...

I have no MF Bodies or lenses right now, so I'm not locked into anything. Just looking to get into it for some short money.

Thanks in advance.

Hello Adam,

There are a few main things going for the Valeo 6:

1. Price - ridiculously low
2. ISO - its native speed is 125iso, which was almost unheard of in MF at the time - think stopping down for DOF with less flash power (it can be set to 250 as well)
3. Speed: maybe less relevant for you, but at nearly 2 frames per second, it will run circles around any other digital back, including the Aptus 54S which was the speed king.
4. Live View: being CMOS based, Live View is much better and offers faster refresh rate compared to CCD-based backs. It works really well on view cameras without the need for a sliding adapter (we produce direct Graflok plates). NOTE: Live View with the Valeo 6 requires use of the older Leaf Capture V8, with some limitations regarding compatibility with Intel macs.

However, since it is fairly old and because of the fact there are not millions of these backs in the field, it is not officially supported by the latest leaf Capture software (meaning it works but with a few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed.)

If you can "stretch" it by another few $$ and find a good used Valeo 11 (11MP) you will enjoy great image quality, Live View, 50-200 iso, fast capture rate (~1fps) and good support in Leaf Capture 11. (NOTE: Live View requires using a dongle, which can be found 2nd hand as well)

Have a look at the work of THIS STUDIO which uses several Valeo 11 backs exclusively on Sinar P2 and Hasselblad 553ELX cameras

I have RAW files from both these backs somewhere, in case you would like to do some peeping (they work in Leaf Capture as well as LightRoom, ACR etc.)

Hope this helps

BR

Yair

Logged
Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2009, 02:04:08 PM »
ReplyReply

And for food avoid stitching or multishot backs , it can be amazing the amount certain types food can move in a very short space of time.

T
Logged

Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. http://www.terencehogben.co.za
adam tracksler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #10 on: April 16, 2009, 09:25:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Seems like I may be better off getting a Tilt/Shift lens than going MF.
Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2009, 09:36:17 AM »
ReplyReply

It depends om what you really want. Super conveniance or ultimate quality. As i have mentioned before on this forum, most photographers are in a business where ultimate quality is not demanded, where the lighting conditions are always fine and clients do not see the difference between a 5d and a real back. If you belong to the latest group, get yourself a canon tse lens and enjoy mediocre quality and save your money for hollidays or personal projects.
When you are into industrial photography, take the same shot with your DSLR and a 22Mp back and see the enormous differance. You will never use the canon or nikon for that anymore!!!
But as said, it all depends on waht one expects in life....
Logged
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #12 on: April 16, 2009, 02:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

No canon with lens comes close to what whatever digital back with a decent mamamiya or hassie lens has to offer. The 24mm is worthless on a 21 dslr.... if you have seen the alternative such as a arca swiss with digitar and any back up from 6 Mp. Maybe the new 24 and 17mm will be better. I will test them as soon as possible. But for portraiture, weddings and other social stuff one does not need the extreem quality a back or complete camera system has to offer but that does not mean that a canon comes in the quality range of MFDB. It only says that for some sort of photography, where in the past people mostly used their 35mm nikon F4 or Canon Eos1n, that never demanded extreme quality  DSLR is the best option. In the past there were photographers shooting 4/5 inch and larger. That kind of photogaphy still exists and is now shot with digital back's. On the other hand, a lot of clients do not seem to demand the quality wich was usual some years ago. Maybe because art buyers and art directors are so young these days that they have never seen a decent picture.
i don't know, just thinking...
Logged
MichaelAlanBielat
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78



WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 16, 2009, 02:25:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: adam tracksler
Seems like I may be better off getting a Tilt/Shift lens than going MF.

I would probably consider going with your current 5D, or getting the new 5D Mark II or even get a 1Ds Mark II or 1Ds Mark III and get yourself a 45 or 90mm tilt shift...

You will be in the 21mp range with their new bodies which is double what you currently have and that tilt/shift lens will handle food and architecture work quite well. Plus you don't "need" to be tethered because you can see the results on the back of the camera (although it is a perk because you can see your results immediately at full screen)

It seems to me like you would be going MF but using old tech. I think the current full frame lineup for Canon would all in all be most gratifying without you having to change systems...

I am not dogging the Valeo or anyone using it... I just think that $2k to $5k worth of Canon stuff as a minimum investment would fit his needs quite well IMHO
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 02:26:04 PM by MichaelAlanBielat » Logged
ziocan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 427


« Reply #14 on: April 16, 2009, 10:27:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ixpressraf
No canon with lens comes close to what whatever digital back with a decent mamamiya or hassie lens has to offer. On the other hand, a lot of clients do not seem to demand the quality wich was usual some years ago. Maybe because art buyers and art directors are so young these days that they have never seen a decent picture.
i don't know, just thinking...
I agree that no canon or nikon is a match for a current digital set up with a Mamiya or an Hasselblad, contax etc....
But for the second part, I don't know about that.
More than being responsibility of young people that does not have seen a decent picture, it is the fact that 95% of what was shot with a reflex medium format and film before year 2000 is not  up to the quality of what we can get out of one of the recent 20mp plus DSLR.
I tend to think as you do sometimes, but I just need to go back and look to all of those "much better" photographs taken prior 2000 with film and MF and I quickly realized that , most of them are somewhat not sharp enough for today requirements. not mentioning the DR myth of film VS a well exposed and processed digital file.
It may well be that all these young people got good eyes and culture that most of the elders could dreanm of when they were at their age.
that is something to consider.
otherwise we can fall for the old saying: "it was all better in the past", when it actually was much worst instead.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 10:31:40 PM by ziocan » Logged
Terence h
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2009, 12:22:23 AM »
ReplyReply

If i had to choose for you now , i would get the Canon 5D MK2 + some form of tilt shift lens set up , maybe the 90 TSE but also look at the Zoerk
set up where you can get even more movements.

T
Logged

Terence Hogben. Durban. South Africa. http://www.terencehogben.co.za
ixpressraf
Guest
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2009, 12:55:26 AM »
ReplyReply

That is just my point: in the last century, there were people shooting 4/5 and larger because they wanted and needed ultimate quality. There were also a lot of people using MF and LF that did not needed to use it and did not know how to use it. And yes, most images from wedding photographers and portraits were not really sharp, but that was then and is not now a high end market, it is a marketsegment however were there is a lot of money to earn, but not one that demands extreem quality. However, a lot of these people, who mostly shoot weddings, portraits, sometimes some ads for small businesses come telling over here that there is no need for MF digital and that a dslr equals MF. That simply isn't the case. There still are photographers that have clients who are not sattisfied with 5DMk2 images or nikon D3x files. Those clients and photographers used to use 4/5 inch in the past and are now using a DB to get best possible file quality. And yes, as i always knew from 1998 when i went almost complete digital, film is simply inferior to digital. Even back then, a file from a leaf cantare blew away 4/5 inch when we talked abot DR. ( not detail, as it was onlo a 6 Mp back).
Logged
jimgolden
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406


WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2009, 10:31:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Schweikert
And a big reason I read all the time is that the majority of markets where arch shooters work (outside the world of multi million people cities, the rest of the world exists in volume of smaller towns and markets), clients won't pay premiums because you use a digital back. They don't care. They want great photos and not concerned that a photographer is using a $50K camera system. No different than worrying that the talented carpenter doing interior creativity with wood for the building site is using a $1000 hand plane or a $50 one from Home Depot.

too true...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad