Leaf debuts Aptus-II 10R digital camera back with rotating sensor
By Donald Melanson 
posted March 31st 2010 3:36PM
posted March 31st 2010 3:36PM
When you pay tens of thousands of dollars for a medium or large format camera and camera back you expect at least a bit of convenience, right? Well, it looks like Leaf is now making folks' lives a tad easier with its new Aptus-II 10R digital camera back, which packs a rotating sensor that will let you switch from portrait to landscape orientation without actually removing the camera back from the camera. Other than that, you can expect a 56-megapixel sensor, a 3.5-inch touchscreen, ISO range from 80-800, and full compatibility with most medium and large format cameras. Oh, and a price of €24,995, or about $33,700.
Wow that's alot of money/pixels.
@Kloc
moneypixels just became a word
@jstraw
dibs
moneypixels is my new favorite word.
Why isn't the sensor JUST SQUARE?
@jstraw
Because nobody uses square images, and you take the image from a circle, so if you made the chip square, you'd have to make it taller and narrower, and then crop the result to get the image you want.
So in the end, you'd end up with an inferior result.
@Sarig
Medium format can utilize square ratio.
@jstraw The sensor is 50x33mm
@Sarig His idea isn't bad, actually. Cropping happens all the time it really isn't a big deal, using the largest amount of the image projected by your very expensive lens would actually be a better use of resources. If you made it square, it would be narrower and taller, but you could extend this idea so you can really improve functionality. If you wanted ultimate versatility, make the sensor cross shaped, or circular. That way it records all of what the lens takes in and you can go back and rotate it and crop it as you wish.
A larger sensor would have more pixels and use more silicon, so it would be significantly more expensive, but it certainly wouldn't give inferior results.
@jstraw Are pictures square? How about magazines? Television? There are very few ways a picture of any kind will end up square.
@sydcinema Yes, indeed, many pictures are square. You do realize that the camera that this back is attached to––the Hasselblad 503CW, along with all its siblings in the 500- (or V) series––was designed to take square pictures, right?
I've always thought sensors should be circular so that we'd be able to truly maximize the image circle (including that created by fisheye lenses). Let us decide what the best crop is.
@sydcinema Images that are all the same shape are boring... Good god... has no one ever heard of cropping?
@jstraw
To some of my repliers...WOW, just...well, wow.
Yes a circle would have advantages but it would mean the round back would be taller and wider than the back of the camera body.
Thank you to those of you that understand about image circles and why medium format cameras are shaped the way they are.
A rectangular sensor is just pre-cropping the same image circle more than a square image would be. If you make the sensor
square, what you spend to provide more sensor area, you don't have to spend in making a back that freaking rotates. You want portrait or landscape...crop it yourself...AFTER you capture.
Why capture LESS?
@jstraw Traditional medium format film is typically square or square-ish. However, due to costs of fabricating a silicon wafer of sensors, it's usually more economical (you get more sensors per wafer) to go with more customized sizes. But you're right, square gets you the most optimal amount of image space (besides a circle).
@richardchoi
As I mentioned, this would be offset by eliminating the additional engineering and manufacturing required by a rotating back.
@jstraw Offset somewhat, maybe. If it would be offset fully - they'd probably have already done it. Sensor manufacturing gets exponentially more difficult/expensive with size, right? I imagine the cost of the metal bits that rotate is probably only a few hundred dollars.
@jstraw a manufactured/etched silicon wafer can cost a company tens of thousands of dollars PER wafer. Wafer efficiency goes down hugely disproportionate to the individual chip size (the cost of a 6 10x10mm chips would be ALOT less than 1 60x60mm chip), ironically in this case since silicon wafers are circular in size.
More likely is that it's incredibly cheaper for Leaf to engineer a rotating 50x33mm sensor than it would be to manufacture a stationary 50x50 sensor.
So what kind of photography is a 56MP camera used for?
@who said what Taking pictures of atoms of course!
@who said what
It's not the resolution that people are buying. It's extremely (I'll say it again, extremely) shallow depth of field. You can do things with this camera that will blow your mind. Fine art photographers use these cameras. Fashion photographers use them. Wedding photographers that are charging $50k+ use these cameras. Large sensors lend themselves to be higher resolution just simply because there's more space to work with, and the resulting byproduct is the shallow DOF.
@xenigo
Would you have links to any such resources that actually display the work done using these cameras? Not that I'm going to buy them or that I can afford them... I'm just interested. Thanks in advance.
@who said what My guess would be high end studio photography--fashion, still life, food, etc.
@fromantis
Actually you are right!
Those who are interested can check out some photos clicked using this camera on Leaf's website itself. Here's the link:
http://www.leaf-photography.com/gallery/index.php
@xenigo
Actually, you're wrong.
A 50mm f1.4 on a 35mm sensor has a shallower DoF than a 75mm f2.8 on a 6x4.5 sensor. While the larger sensor of the Medium Format camera does provide a shallower DoF for a given aperture, Medium Format lenses are not nearly as fast as 35mm lenses.
The reason people buy these cameras is for extreme detail. The large sensor allows a lot more light to be captured with less noise.
@who Medium format is the preferred format for alot of photographers. The film size is larger, so you can get a shallower depth of field, but it can also capture a HELL of a lot more detail.
I believe this was done with a TLRhttp://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon
@noot It's a little more complicated than that. You also have to account for composition, with near identical composition, a larger format film (despite a higher F-stop) almost always will have a thinner DOF, even with equivalent lenses.
@richardchoi
Angle of field comes into play sure, but I used 50mm vs 75mm since each have a similar field of view.
The simple fact is, people don't buy these cameras for DoF, they buy them for detail.
@richardchoi
Thank you so much for that link. I wonder if it was one of the Leaf cameras in use there.
Politics notwithstanding, Ahmadinejad looks like a real wise, kind and polite guy there. The photographer did do his job of "make me look good" well there! :)
@xenigo shallow DOF is achievable in any Canon or Nikon with the right lens.
@ Several people
Guys its not all about depth of field. Depending on subject distance, an 85mm f/1.2 can give you a depth of field that is actually too small, as in you focus on someones eye and the tip of their nose is out of focus. Shallow depth of field is not always good.
What medium format gives you is dynamic range, being able to capture fine detail in very bright and very dark areas at the same time
@who said what
Ever seen a massive billboard campaign? Huge magazine layouts? More pixels also translate to the page as typically sharper images, more subtle color gradations, and these sensors usually have a higher dynamic range than typical DSLRs.
@sydcinema
I totally agree. I don't think it'd been priced this much only for shallow DOF. But the new thing I learnt from above was the increase in detail that allows for great portraits! I was wondering earlier where actually a camera like this might be used.
@who said what This would not be very good at all for my style of wedding photography. A much lower resolution, higher speed with really high iso capability like the Nikon FX sensors are much more practical. Brides typically don't need a billboard size image. As sensors continue to improve the need of medium format may eventually be mostly gone.
This would make a great striking implement.
@ComeShot
Practical, anyone?
56?! :O
I would gladly pay the $9,000 for the Pentax 645D instead of this outrageous price. I really hope the Pentax takes off and forces these other MF manufacturers to get more realistic with their prices. I don't see, and never will regardless of my success or annual income, how this camera offers a significant improvement over other sub $10,000 alternatives.
@dmgabe
Your statement is silly on many levels. First of all, the Leaf sensor size is larger.
Second, this is a digital BACK, not a full camera. The Pentax is a camera, you must use Pentax lenses.
Since this is a back, you can mount it to many different bodies... Contax, Hasselblad, Mamiya, etc.
@noot
I am a photography major, and am very familiar with what this is. Bigger is not always better. This is still outrageously priced! For far less money, you can get the Pentax and all its available lenses. The difference in picture quality will be almost undetectable until you blow the photo up to unrealistic sizes. This is yet another case of a company praying on those that know little about the digital realm. More megapixels does not make a product superior.
I can guarantee, with nearly %100 certainty, that when honestly compared side by side that the price of this piece of equipment cannot be justified for most situations. It simply provides the photographers that buy it a way to brag about the cost of their equipment.
@dmgabe
This isn't superior due to more megapixels; it's a superior product and happens to have more megapixels, as better bodies often include.
This isnt really a big deal that the sensor rotates, at Photokina 2 years ago Leaf already had a back that rotates the sensor.
For those wondering where this camera is used. It's a studio camera, if you want to see results, checkout any issue of Vogue or any high fashion magazine. The images in these magazines are made up for mostly Canon 1DS mk2, Phase One digital backs and sometimes Leaf backs (nobody in HIGH fashion uses Leaf backs). I'd say you find these in catalog fashion and architecture.
Why so many pixels? Makes the retouching a hell of a lot easier having the everything down to the smallest pixel of detail. Nothing to do with Shallow DOF. Most fashion images with these cameras are shot at f8 1/250 @ ISO 100. Nothing shallow there.
Yes, they are super expensive too, but photographers dont actually buy them, Rental houses do buy them, and rent to photographers.
Most professional fashion photographers don't actually own a camera or know how to use one... irony at it's best.
@mctacos
I just don't get why this is such a big deal either.
My Mamiya RZ67 series film magazines all rotated. Why wouldn't you make a sensor do this, too? I remember Mamiya RB bodies did this since the '70s.
Honestly, just how hard would this be to do for the digital sensor?
for that price it better have flash and silverlight
some right answers and some wrong, so amusing.
DoF has nothing to do with why one buys one of these it's all about the quality of the sensor in terms of dynamic range, resolution, noise, etc. As well as the cameras most these backs are used on, have very high quality optics and far more control than an SLR format(these backs can also be used on view cameras)
On rotating backs, Leaf made their first rotating sensor back 12 or so years ago (Leaf Volare and Cantare) I think it's great they've made another. Previous models require removing the back to rotate it. In a working studio environment that has to be done many times in one day all the while letting in dust and increasing the chance of dropping the back.
On the 'photographers don't buy these' Yeah they do, Got several in the studio right now...
Bad thing with this back, it appears not to be compatible with Leaf AFi cameras(Rollei Hy6). Real blow to photographers like us that have several AFis and now cannot upgrade our backs. No reason for this other than Rollei and PhaseOne(who recently bought Leaf) are having a little spat.
Also note that $33k, is just the back, still have to spend another $30k on a back, lenses and accessories(well if you get a Hasselblad) Plus you could easily spend $50k+ on strobe lighting not to mention grip equipment etc. and people complain about how expensive hiring a photographer is... well there ya go, they're all in debt up to their eyeballs! heh.
i never understood why no one has made a digital back for film cameras, i would love to stick a digital back into my EOS and save the hassle of buying a DSLR
What's up with the max ISO of 800? With a sensor that physically large, the pixel density must be really low, even with all those pixels. The noise should be super low. I guess fashion photogs don't need ISO100,000 but it's kind of a niche camera anyway - might as well attract a bigger niche.
@MattTheEngineer
Maybe they'd rather put a better quality amplifier in it at the expense of a wider amplification range? Pure speculation on my part.
But still, cameras like this wonät be used handheld in bad lighting, they're primarily studio/fashion/landscape cameras, so LOW ISO is actually more important than high.
To answer Manu questions:
- medium formats depth of field that has been mentioned is a DOP factor of lens compression AND wide field of view, not simply larger apertures or more zoom. For example, a 50mm on a MF is has a reletively wide angle of view versus a 50mm lens on a 35mm sensor, yet exibits the same desired lens compression. This look CANNOT be achieved by any combo of zooming in or larger apertures on a smaller sensor lens (or zooming out with a larger aperture, in case you were wondering)
- they offer immense dynamic range; try 12 factor of shadow to highlight detail, verses the very best slrs only achieving 8-10 in perfect circumstances.
- the detail; believe me, when you're overly familiarized with critical professional work, even the 5D II and d3x with primes look muddy and weak
- crop'ability! It's far more important than it sounds, and it's not because someone can't compose. Even 24mp has quite limited cropability
- and more... Etc.
Erm, what is wrong with rotating the camera by hand?
These cameras are used under controlled lightning so shutter speed will fast.
There is a viewfinder so I can't see why photographers should be charged for a feature that is rather useless.
as said previousely, why don't any manufacturer built a digital back to stick to an old second hand camera? We don't necessairely need the highest technology, we are just happy with cheap moneypixel and number porn.