Leaf Credo USB 3

[FredBGG]

Oh and one more thing.
I don't lend my name to leaf or phase one.
I pay for my gear, I don't get paid for the images they use from me, I'm just a very enthusiastic user.  

I never implied that you were getting free gear or getting paid. Sorry if you understood it that way.

Lending you name to something means you give them the OK you use your name and your endorsement of the product.
It does not mean that you get paid for it.

You are correct about "doing the homework"..... it's just much easier when the information is clear, "honest" and accurate.
Doing your homework should not require correcting incomplete and inaccurate information on a prominent feature detailed on the website of the manufacturer.

[FredBGG]

I would love to be able to work with usb3 because the cables are less stiff and I fly a lot so everything I can save on space and weight is a big plus.

While USB 3 cables can be slimmer and less stiff they will not work very well with longer cables.
The most reliable USB3 cables are just as stiff as the good fire wire cables.

[FredBGG]

I don't think it is OK to jump on any on these forums, just because you have some bad feelings about some product.

Best regards
Erik

Bad feelings?

I bought a DF system and had bad experience with multiple bodies.
It was a lot more than that. Camera freezes, focusing way below claimed performance, V-grip camera combination freezing randomly requiring un assembling camera, lens and grip to get things working again. Having to do this repeatedly in front of a client whose time is very very expensive is unacceptable to both the client and me.
I needed a very simple part from Phase one. The plastic plate with the alignment pins that keeps the v-grip and body aligned when mounted.
Without this the alignment would go out and the camera would freeze. It was a particular problem with longer lenses.
Neither Phase One USA, Mamiya USA or the LA dealer could come up with it after weeks of being bounced from one to the other.

So you think that it is not OK for a previous owner of a cameras system, he or she had major problems with, to be critical of the system on a public forum.
Actually outside of the immediate "fan base" of Phase/Leaf the caliber of my work and clients gives what I say quite a bit of credibility among many photographers
considering what type of camera to buy. I get many messages from prospective buyers thanking me. One even said that knowing about bugs and overstated claims helped him haggle a better price. Seems helpful to me.

Due to the quality of high end DSLR cameras being virtually indistinguishable for 99% of print, advertising, catalog it really is getting easier and easier to tip the choice
in favor of 35mm systems.

These review do it nearly every time especially when the reader downloads the images and print them on high end printers that actually print better than the publications where their images are published.

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I feel it is OK to share bad experience. What I don't find OK is to jump on any individual sharing his/her experience.

I have read both your articles you quote, and also written my own: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

Best regards
Erik

Bad feelings?

I bought a DF system and had bad experience with multiple bodies.
It was a lot more than that. Camera freezes, focusing way below claimed performance, V-grip camera combination freezing randomly requiring un assembling camera, lens and grip to get things working again. Having to do this repeatedly in front of a client whose time is very very expensive is unacceptable to both the client and me.
I needed a very simple part from Phase one. The plastic plate with the alignment pins that keeps the v-grip and body aligned when mounted.
Without this the alignment would go out and the camera would freeze. It was a particular problem with longer lenses.
Neither Phase One USA, Mamiya USA or the LA dealer could come up with it after weeks of being bounced from one to the other.

So you think that it is not OK for a previous owner of a cameras system, he or she had major problems with, to be critical of the system on a public forum.
Actually outside of the immediate "fan base" of Phase/Leaf the caliber of my work and clients gives what I say quite a bit of credibility among many photographers
considering what type of camera to buy. I get many messages from prospective buyers thanking me. One even said that knowing about bugs and overstated claims helped him haggle a better price. Seems helpful to me.

Due to the quality of high end DSLR cameras being virtually indistinguishable for 99% of print, advertising, catalog it really is getting easier and easier to tip the choice
in favor of 35mm systems.

These review do it nearly every time especially when the reader downloads the images and print them on high end printers that actually print better than the publications where their images are published.

http://www.circleofconfusion.ie/d800e-vs-phase-one-iq180/

http://www.photigy.com/nikon-d800e-test-review-vs-hasselblad-h4d40-35mm-against-medium-format/

[Don Libby]

Hi, ...I have ... also written my own: http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/71-mf-digital-myths-or-facts

Best regards
Erik

Erik, finally a non diatribe.  Just finished reading the article and found it compelling and backed up with facts not anecdotal information.

Thanks for the information.

Don

[ErikKaffehr]

Don,

Thanks for the kind words!

Best regards
Erik

Erik, finally a non diatribe.  Just finished reading the article and found it compelling and backed up with facts not anecdotal information.

Thanks for the information.

Don

[FredBGG]

From the article

Conclusion on noise in highlights & shadows

Unless some dramatic improvement happens in technology, dramatically increasing the FWC on small sensors, larger sensors will have an advantage in midtone noise.

Unless some dramatic improvement happens in technology, reducing the readout noise of large sensors, modern CMOS will have an advantage in the darks.

Findings

The IQ180 image has noisier shadows compared with the Nikon D800E image. The difference is visible in both actual pixels view and with the IQ180 image downscaled to D800E image dimensions.

However practical tests don't seem to confirm this at least when it comes to grey card testing. (upper mid tones)



It's also interesting that there is virtually no difference between the d600 and the d800 despite the difference in pixel size



Here is a comparisson between the D4 and the D800. Same generation cameras.
One with significantly larger photosites. The noise is practically identical.
The big pixel theories don't hold up.....

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for your observation. A few observations of my own:

1) The reasoning I made essentially ignores ISO, it is about capturing the best image and for that the sensor needs to be fully utilized.

2) It seems that MF backs have much lower quantum efficiency (QE) than DSLRs, so they need a lot more light.

3) So when I  compare curves from DxO I only look at the maximum values ignoring the fact that MF curves are shifted to the left, because of low QE.

4) I actually think that significant progress may have been made on full well capacity on DSLR sensors. The figures from sensorgen point in that direction, but I'm not sure those figures are correct, partly because they give different FWC for same sensor sitting in different cameras.

Anyway:

Sensor	MP	FWC
Nikon D3X	24	48975
Sony Alpha 900	24	26843	(note that the sensor is basically the same as in D3X)
Nikon D600	24	76231

5) The fact that D800 and D600 are quite similar in 18% SNR is that they probably use the same technology. The D800 will capture the same amount of photons per surface area as the D600. FWC is probably proportional to pixel area. So the D800 simply gives better resolution at similar noise levels.  

6) The comparison I made was between the Phase One IQ180 and as I said I compared noise at lowest ISO where FWC is utilized fully.

In this case what I see is

Camera/Back	ISO	SNR 18%
Hasselblad H3DII	39	45.3
Phase One IQ180	29	48.7
Nikon D800	73	46

I guess that the IQ180 has a sensor with better FWC than the one Hasselblad uses.

Another factor slightly favoring MFD may be that the sensor don't have OLP filters. The lack of OLP filtering is beneficial to sharpness, so MFD images need less sharpening. Sharpening tends to increase noise. The downside of not having OLP filtering is that it is easy to get fake detail. The D800E has removed OLP filtering, so it is a bit more similar to MFD.

Best regards
Erik

From the article
However practical tests don't seem to confirm this at least when it comes to grey card testing. (upper mid tones)



It's also interesting that there is virtually no difference between the d600 and the d800 despite the difference in pixel size



Here is a comparisson between the D4 and the D800. Same generation cameras.
One with significantly larger photosites. The noise is practically identical.
The big pixel theories don't hold up.....

[bradleygibson]

FredBGG, be sure to set DxO to "Screen" if you are examining pixel quality.  Set to "Print", you are comparing results after they have been downsized to 8MP.

[FredBGG]

While USB 3 cables can be slimmer and less stiff they will not work very well with longer cables.
The most reliable USB3 cables are just as stiff as the good fire wire cables.

I just want to add to this. You can actually use a thinner cable for the last 3 or 4 feet and connect to a rather stiffer
powered extension .... it's working for me.