Leaf AFi-II 7 and 10 review/preview (added pictures at the end)

[Arturo]

Hi Frank, Is there a lens crop factor in the AFi system?

Thanks, Arturo

[frank]

The system is based on the 6x6 Rollei so yes.
But it's clearly seen in the viewfinder.
There are no digital backs yet that are really fullframe by the way.
The closest is the Leaf Aptus 10 that in width is a no crop on a 6x45 system.

All other are crops, even when they call it full frame (something you see in the Hasselblad lineup), those backs don't have croplines in the viewfinder but the size of the sensor is smaller than a full frame 6x45.

[frank]

There has been alot of speculations about Franke & Heidecke the last few months/weeks.
According to some people the company would stop and Leaf and Sinar would loose the delivery of the AFi/HY bodies.
I asked Leaf about this a while ago but could not get any firm statements about the issue except that according to them it was not as bad as most people predicted for the AFi system, in other words they had the believe it would continue in one form or another.
I decided to not post this on my blog because in my opinion it's vague and coming from a party that is involved.

Last week however the topic also came up when I taught a workshop including some German photographers, one of them was involved with the Franke & Heidecke affair and when he saw I was a Leaf shooter the topic of course changed to this topic

He assured me that in the coming weeks some news will come out that is positive for the MF market, in other words as it looks now F&H will continue producing the bodies and will continue in this or another form.
For me that's very good news because I really would hate it if the market would boil down to the closed Hasselblad system on one side and the open Mamiya system on the other side.

With the AFi/Hy bodies there is a wonderful alternative that in my opinion is better than the combination Mamiya 645AFD/III with a digital back.
I use the RZ67ProII myself in the studio and the 645AFD/III on location and I prefer the RZ glass to that of the 645.
On some occassions I also shoot with the AFi and find this quality very close or equal to the RZ I use, so if we would loose that option it would be a blow to the MF market I'm afraid, not everyone likes to work with a stand bound RZ camera and the AFi gives a perfect alternative, and if I had to do it all over again I would without a doubt opt for the AFi camera meaning I would not need one camera for the studio and one for location.....

Alot of photographers will claim that one camera being it the 645 or a 5DMKII or Nikons D3 will do just fine I have to disagree and agree.
Of course for most (maybe all work) they all do exactly what is needed, and I don't have a customer that DEMANDS MF files, however I'm a photographer/person that wants the absolute best I can get (and afford) and the Aptus 22 with the RZ67ProII gives me that much more that I decided to invest in the RZ next to the 645AFD/III.
And to be honest the RZ investment is very low compared to the 645, I have bought the complete camera with lenses for roughly the same ammount as I paid for the 645AFD/III body.

At that time there was no AFi camera
If I had to do it all over again I would without a doubt opt for the AFi, and keep one camera for both the studio and location.
With the continuation of F&H this will still be an option for people now switching to MF and I think that's a very good thing.

[billcat]

Frank,

I'm wondering if the new cameras have better image quality than the old Aptus 22 that you use? I see that they have more pixels and a better LCD and higher base ISO. It's hard to find good examples on the Net. I'm not too concerned about the number of pixels.

Michael Reichmann says that the P65+ has better image quality than previous cameras he has used.

Anyway, I'm just kind of curious and can't find much info out there.

Bill

[frank]

As far as I know the P65+ uses a different sensor than the previous backs from Phase one.
It now uses a Dalsa chip, and Leaf already used Dalsa sensors.

For me personally I like the Dalso sensor much more than the Kodak sensors.

[frank]

Sorry forgot to answer your question.

I absolutly love the Aptus22 and find no need to upgrade at the moment.
IF and WHEN I upgrade it will probably be to the Aptus10.
But than again I don't really need more than 22 MP.
But I do love ISO25 and that's only on the Aptus22.

[billcat]

Thx, it sounds like there isn't too much image quality improvements with the new models. I'll probably pick up an Aptus 22 in the future to replace my ZD. There isn't much info out there. At least prices are getting good for the older models.

Bill

[Geoff]

Frank -

Thanks for all the good review of the Leaf AFI. I have been a Rollei fan for some time, and fell in love with the AFI for its ease of use, ability to use all those older lenses (!), and just how it felt. I managed to find a demo Leaf back in Portugal (AFI II-7), and DHW in Germany sold me a Rollei Hy-6 with Leaf battery connections - put the two together and it worked like a charm. Just flawlessly. Its rather amazing.

The files are lovely. Exploration is just beginning, but one thing that is not mentioned a lot is that the mirror system is much changes, and more fluid. Less bounce, and softer. So too, the lockup is quite easy and at hand, and for even street shooting, you can lock the mirror up and take the shot. Overall, the camera is hand-holdable to quite low speeds - I've gone under 1/30th with success - but don't believe it myself....

One other thing is that the focus confirmation is right on, thus making use of the manual lenses much easier. Seeing the histogram come up on the side screen is good too - quick confirmation. The only quibble is that the Leaf back isn't the fastest at showing blow-ups in the field, but that's a minor point. This is definately a camera to grow into. 

Brought some Leaf files into LC 11.3, and wow, they opened up fast, processed fast, worked well. I've done just a little bit of a comparison with C1 5.1. The Phase has more options, but the Leaf seems a bit more sensitive to the back. Any thoughts? 

Overall, its an amazing piece of kit.

Geoff

[frank]

I strongly believe that c1 is still not there, LC is much faster when shooting tethered.
In the studio I switched between both and I prefer c1 but use LC because c1 shoots only compressed and aperture doesn't like this files.

The rollei I never shot with but should be the same as the afi indeed, loved that camera.

[Geoff]

Frank -

Just ran a test of C1 5.1 and LC 11.3 on some shots with heavy highlight and shadow - big dynamic range. Curiously, after processing they ooked very very close to each other - but the Phase processing was done with a bunch of work on sliders for recovery, exposure and brightness, and sometimes curves.... the LC were either straight out of the box, or just some minor exposure fiddling. Less than half the time in the LC work flow.

I wonder if there are some presets in C1 that one needs to have.

Interestingly at the end of the day, they were practically identical - I'm trying hard not to give the nod to the LC software, as I'd rather standardize on the C1, but the LC was pretty darn good.
 

[frank]

For me I won't switch for everything untill it's about as fast as LC with tethered shooting.
I also like the interface of C1 more by the way, although I do think there is maybe also a bit too much there.