Leaf rolls out wide frame AFi 10 camera system

It looks like those that found Phase One's 60-megapixel P65+ camera a bit too much for them but Hasselblad's 50-megapixel H3DII-50 somehow lacking may now finally have the answer they've been looking for, as Leaf has just introduced its new 56-megapixel AFi 10 camera system. This one's main selling point is its 56mm true wide frame sensor that Leaf designed with DALSA, which promises to "take you to the edge of the medium-format frame." Apart from that, you can expect a one frame per second capture time, exposure times up to a minute, light sensitivity from ISO 50 to 800 and, of course, some 171MB file sizes to impress your friends with. No word on a price and, quite frankly, we're a little hesitant to ask.

[Via 1001 Noisy Cameras]

[whatsdamattau @ Aug 1st 2008 12:15AM]

I'm afraid to even ask how much this one is going to be. However, it's getting closer and closer to being a full frame 6x6. Can't wait to see if that'll ever happen.

[Evan @ Aug 1st 2008 12:17AM]

see: midrange mercedes.

[who? @ Aug 1st 2008 12:23AM]

Ridiculous...

[neofolklore @ Aug 1st 2008 7:55AM]

I'll definitely need a Mtron SSD raid 0 for this!

[Interpol @ Aug 1st 2008 12:35AM]

Coolies. What kind of mortgage do I need to take out on my house to buy this? I feel the need to add to this country's subprime woes!

[Kalub @ Aug 1st 2008 12:26AM]

nice

[AndrewAmazed @ Aug 1st 2008 12:57AM]

weird shaped...
but megapixels don't mean everything!!!~

[neofolklore @ Aug 1st 2008 7:56AM]

I honestly don't think that will be an issue here.

[invincible @ Aug 1st 2008 9:06AM]

Megapixels don't matter, but this is one of the very few situations where it is at least slightly relevant because the increase in pixel count is associated with an increase in sensor time. It's still a useless measure though... reminds me of all those acronyms for screen resolutions.

"3000x2000" will always make more sense to me than "6 MP", "3888x2600" vs "10 MP" and assuming a 3:2 aspect ratio, "9115x6110" for "56 MP". But that looks less impressive on marketing sheets because doubling the pixel count only increases the size of each dimension by a factor of 1.4. =)

[invincible @ Aug 1st 2008 9:06AM]

time = size, wish there was an edit function.

[John Doe @ Aug 1st 2008 12:59AM]

where are such cameras used??

[Charlie Taylor @ Aug 1st 2008 1:07AM]

High end advertising, billboards and such. Lots of portrait photographers prefer to use them as well so they have a lot of latitude in the gradations.

[Rick @ Aug 1st 2008 1:09AM]

To shoot high-class British pr0n.

[John Doe @ Aug 1st 2008 1:11AM]

thanks

[Temple @ Aug 1st 2008 1:20AM]

Studio photography, but even that's becoming a niche. These days its hard to justify the return on investments on a 39MP digital back like the P45+ or H3D 39MP much less these new 40k+ 50-60MP backs.

Not to say there absolutely isn't a use for these new backs, but maximum printing quality is already meet with these 39MP backs (hell the older 22MP backs already meet most needs for very large print).

From an article on Luminous Landscapes the ENTIRE medium-format digital market is around 'low thousands', compared to the hundreds of thousands Canon sells in their 1Ds series and millions in their lower prosumer cameras. Its a very very small market that's mostly being rented to pro photographers only when they need it.

[Jesse S @ Aug 1st 2008 1:45AM]

Ability to crop a shit load.

[Yevon @ Aug 1st 2008 3:14AM]

@ Rick
Man, I would be pissed if they used this for porn.

"Loading... Still loading... 3 hours of loading... O shit. It's another dude."

[eric f. @ Aug 2nd 2008 12:04PM]

@Temple, What? Studio photography is not a niche. It's a daily reality for almost all professional photographers.

FYI, The higher MP backs often result in more shadow detail and less noise.

The investment on a digital back is a no-brainer. If you are used to spending 20k+ a year on film, processing and polaroid, having a $700-$900/month payment on a digital back is easy when you can bill that expense to a client in one day.

[omnicloud @ Aug 1st 2008 1:26AM]

I'm tired of all these 'oh so expensive', 'need a mortgage' kind of posts on these cameras. These are built for real full-time commercial professionals, and not people who shoot weddings on just weekends with their 40D to supplement their regular job.

These are meant for businesses that, with equipment that works better or makes things easier, saves them invaluable time. That alone is worth the cost of the equipment for many. Like a comment above me, images with these things go on billboards.

/rant

[neofolklore @ Aug 1st 2008 7:57AM]

I remember when 6megapixels was the standard for professionals to put things on billboards.

[ben_j @ Aug 1st 2008 1:31AM]

It shouldn't be too expensive. I mean, I got my Yashica G for like a hundo on ebay, and it totally gives me 56x56mm, full frame negs. It doesn't really seem too hard to accomplish.

Ohhh, wait. This is like, digital or something? I'll be damned.

[Matt @ Aug 1st 2008 1:33AM]

"To shoot high-class British pr0n."

Isn't this an oxymoron?

For the record I think Britain is a great country and our best ally!

Just some tongue in cheek :P

[Jesse S @ Aug 1st 2008 1:46AM]

Britain is the next police state. (Then the US.)

[Gaz @ Aug 1st 2008 5:54AM]

Police State??? yeah right...If it was a police state we could go out at night an not worry about little chav tits acting "American Gang" stylie with their blat blat an bling...innit

[nathan.wong @ Aug 1st 2008 8:53AM]

If you look up Police State in the dictionary you'll see a picture of San Francisco, California. That's a country all to itself. They make laws that defy even the government of the United States.

As for the camera back, I'd take it in an instant.

[craig @ Aug 1st 2008 11:16AM]

"If you look up Police State in the dictionary you'll see a picture of San Francisco, California. That's a country all to itself. They make laws that defy even the government of the United States. "

Just when you thought Engadget comments couldn't get any dumber...

[Ender @ Aug 1st 2008 2:21AM]

I'd rather use an 8x10 film negative.

[Rick @ Aug 1st 2008 3:10AM]

As would I. Only the very top advertising or fashion photographers can still afford to do that, let alone use this sort of camera, and sadly I'm not one of them. Maybe one day....

[Razor @ Aug 1st 2008 3:26AM]

It is, however amazing how much price difference there is between a digital medium format setup and a film setup.

I don't mean amazing as if it doesn't make sense. It does. I mean amazing that, in some sense, there are some real diminishing returns when medium format film is so relatively cheap.

I guess it really comes down to how much you need to quickly review your work, not to mention experiment. I'm sure that is worth the thousands for some pro photographers.

[jon @ Aug 1st 2008 11:18AM]

Except that it is not relatively cheap... 5 bucks for the roll + $5 for processing x 150 rolls for a normal pro shoot = $1500/day for film and you still have to get the finals drum scanned at $50-100 a pop. You can rent a digital back for 500 for the day or own one for less than 1000 a month.

[Rick @ Aug 1st 2008 3:37AM]

@ Razor: The digital revolution in pro photography was largely about immediacy and cost overheads and less about quality in the early stages. A well-scanned transparency might well be comparable, but with deadlines and budgets as they are, no-one can really afford to wait around for the film to be sent to the lab, scanned and retouched anymore. Thus the demise of amazing (yet costly) products like Polaroid.

[56kmodem @ Aug 1st 2008 6:30AM]

a holga 120cfn will do the same job for £15

[Godspeedgen2 @ Aug 1st 2008 12:18PM]

you have got to be kidding me bro, holga? plastic lens? light leaked body on any number of films?

were you trying to be funny?

[Kwai Noi @ Aug 1st 2008 8:35AM]

I have heard you can rent these backs for about $5000 a week. Of course you have to leave your left testicle for security.

I have a 35 year old Yashica Mat 124 TLR, it and a $250 scanner can still give better image quality. Mostly because digital systems response is only about as good as slide film.

[Rick @ Aug 1st 2008 9:50AM]

Mate, I hate to break it to you but one of these digital backs will give you about 12 stops of useful dynamic range (According to Phase One for their P65+). Slide film and a cheap scanner? Half that at best.

[Unknown @ Aug 1st 2008 11:26PM]

"This one's main selling point is its 56mm true wide frame sensor that Leaf designed with DALSA, which promises to "take you to the edge of the medium-format frame."

Ha .. the edge of the medium-format frame? That barely qualifies
for medium format. Wake me up when you have 6x7 down (or better 6x9). And I really doubt that the photo taken with this is anything close to the quality of a good 6x7 negative. Even a 645 would need about 90+MP to capture the color properly.

[Rick @ Aug 2nd 2008 1:05AM]

And what exactly are you basing that on?

Don't get me wrong, I own six film cameras from 35mm to 8x10' and love them all, but to say these backs aren't comparable to the quality of medium format film... that's just plain ignorance.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml