The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

New camera from Phase One?

Paul 2660
Sounds like a 645Z to me.
While I love mine, there are certainly a lot of things that could have been improved.

1. Size - The 645Z is still based on the size of a camera that had a film back, even though it's now a fully integrated camera, and could have been made much slimmer. Take a look at the following cutaway view of the 645Z: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Pentax_645Z_cutaway_2015_CP+.jpg
There is so much space between the sensor and rear LCD, that those lazy Pentax engineers have freaking mezzanine connectors and risers linking the electronics together instead of ribbons... compared to the compact structure of modern electronics, this looks like something out of the early 2000's.
The distance from the ф symbol above the top LCD to the rear of the camera could have been sliced down by half or even to a third, with absolutely no practical negative points, except for some repositioned features and a smaller top LCD (who cares?).
In fact, it would even have been better as the rear LCD could have been nested deeper into the body to accommodate your nose or reduce the tunnel effect on the viewfinder, but instead the LCD actually protrudes out further than the back buttons!

2. Better paint job - I'm dead serious! My bought-since-release Canon 5D2 that I've been using for ages has less wear on it then the 645Z I've had since November!

3. Vertical grip - Man, how I miss these... but not before Pentax slims the 645 down as per point #1. If they can make a 645X with add-on grip that weigh together as much as the old Z did alone, that's what I'd want. At least the square chunky form-factor of the Z makes it more tolerable to use in portrait than smaller cameras.

4. Strap lugs - Make those darn strap lugs removable or recessed into the body... Does anyone even really use neck straps anymore?

5. Fix live view pls - I'm glad this isn't a mirrorless camera, as the exposure simulation on live view needs ironing out and it has way too much rolling shutter anyway.

6. No joystick - From 2015 onwards it should be made against the law to release any DSLR-style camera without touch controls to also lack a joystick, regardless of price.
 

Egor

Member
1: I moved to MF, because I do not want an EVF, so obviously I am not looking for that.
2: That exists, it is called a tech cam.
3: That is a feature of the back, not of the camera.
4: That is a feature of the back, not of the camera.
5: That is an important feature: on my H4D, I appreciate that I have a very accurate AF which focusses with an accuracy of a fraction of mm on whatever I chose to focus on. I am not sure that PhaseOne user have it so good (really: I don't know).
1. Fine, but great eyesight looking thru a teeny tiny viewfinder or groundglass with darkcloth over your head is really hip and all that, but is a "perishable" skill....just sayin :)

3 and 4 I disagree alltogether. Why not make LV a separate feature integrated to the camera, not the back? For studio it would be a godsend!
It would allow for highest quality LV (EVF) through the viewfinder regardless of what digital back is on the camera. We would be tethered of course and project to large screen or net conference with AD like Zoom...And because it would use a dedicated video chip, focused on the mirror, it would allow for numerous advantages that do not affect the CCD or CMOS chip at all, leaving them free to do what they were made for, capture.

We actually have taped small video cameras with separate tether feeds to our cameras....seriously, its that important to the multiple people on set at any given time.
I own both CCD and CMOS MFD and can tell you that we rely heavily on LV in studio work both with and without tech cams. The CMOS MFD (IQ250) is certainly a lot better than the CCD but neither is all that great. A dedicated LV only sensor with dedicated LV software with all bells and whistles would get me and a few thousand of my studio brethren to open our wallets.
 

jerome_m

Member
1. Fine, but great eyesight looking thru a teeny tiny viewfinder or groundglass with darkcloth over your head is really hip and all that, but is a "perishable" skill....just sayin :)
The viewfinder on MF cameras is not tiny. Just saying ;)

Moreover, I am not so young any more and I do need reading glasses. But the viewfinder on my MF camera has a diopter adjustment and I don't need my glasses for using it.

3 and 4 I disagree alltogether. Why not make LV a separate feature integrated to the camera, not the back? For studio it would be a godsend!
It would allow for highest quality LV (EVF) through the viewfinder regardless of what digital back is on the camera. We would be tethered of course and project to large screen or net conference with AD like Zoom...And because it would use a dedicated video chip, focused on the mirror, it would allow for numerous advantages that do not affect the CCD or CMOS chip at all, leaving them free to do what they were made for, capture.
Wouldn't it be simpler to request an HDMI out on your cmos back? It only needs to be integrated with the back if you want to project the image to a large screen. This is what I meant when I wrote that it is a feature of the back, not of the camera: it does not need a new camera to integrate that feature.
 

Egor

Member
The viewfinder on MF cameras is not tiny. Just saying ;)

Moreover, I am not so young any more and I do need reading glasses. But the viewfinder on my MF camera has a diopter adjustment and I don't need my glasses for using it.
Jerome_m,...always thinking of yourself! Very selfish of you ;)...
Hmmm...I think I will take a picture sometime of 6 or 7 people (photographer, set designer, art directors, stylists, ...etc) all "in line" behind a 645 camera to peek through the viewfinder and directing their assistants to make adjustments thru the that "huge" viewfinder ;)....and oh yes, there is a ladder because the camera is 10 feet in the air over the center of the set on a boom arm...



Wouldn't it be simpler to request an HDMI out on your cmos back? It only needs to be integrated with the back if you want to project the image to a large screen. This is what I meant when I wrote that it is a feature of the back, not of the camera: it does not need a new camera to integrate that feature.
No, HDMI, USB2,3,C, FW800...it doesn't matter...it is NOT the function of the chip to provide LV...those chips are not meant for live video feed. The LV image is crappy compared to even the cheapest off the shelf vidcams and the controls and brightness adjustments, even with C1 are not there. Also, the chip we payed tens of thousands of dollars for and can render incredible capture detail uses up valuable battery power, heats up, degrades quality, crashes....etc. For instance, my $30K IQ250 doesn't even allow me to white balance the video feed in LV, will deplete its battery in LV in minutes.... I mean, is it too much to ask to even be as good LV as a Canon 40D for $200??

All jokes aside, EVERYTHING is projected to large screen, or video conferenced with off-site art directors...or both. I can't speak for others, but the camera viewfinder is almost a vestigial organ these days in our studio ...a useless appendage left over from some bygone era.
 

jerome_m

Member
No, HDMI, USB2,3,C, FW800...it doesn't matter...it is NOT the function of the chip to provide LV...those chips are not meant for live video feed. The LV image is crappy compared to even the cheapest off the shelf vidcams and the controls and brightness adjustments, even with C1 are not there. Also, the chip we payed tens of thousands of dollars for and can render incredible capture detail uses up valuable battery power, heats up, degrades quality, crashes....etc. For instance, my $30K IQ250 doesn't even allow me to white balance the video feed in LV, will deplete its battery in LV in minutes.... I mean, is it too much to ask to even be as good LV as a Canon 40D for $200??

All jokes aside, EVERYTHING is projected to large screen, or video conferenced with off-site art directors...or both. I can't speak for others, but the camera viewfinder is almost a vestigial organ these days in our studio ...a useless appendage left over from some bygone era.
Then, if you do not want the MF chip to provide live view, the solution would be to replace the existing viewfinder by one with an integrated video camera. On a camera with an interchangeable viewfinder, that solution could be provided by a dedicated accessory. That would be relatively straightforward to do for the Hasselblad H camera, where the viewfinder can be replaced. Yet: nobody is producing that as an accessory, so maybe the big market is not there.

If you want the MF chip to produce a better live view, you will need to wait for a better chip. The problems you note about live view on the present cmos backs can only be solved when Sony will produce a second generation of the cmos chip.
 

Egor

Member
OK, but wouldn't it just be easier on everybody if LV were a camera function instead?

The Sony CMOS chip in the MFD backs (including Hasselblad) is very nice, but LV is better in a 12 year old Canon chip. Canon's implementation of LV in their Utilities software is superior to C1 as well. Thats why we have 2 new Canon 5Sr's on pre-order and not giving up our Canon gear just yet.
But like you said, maybe the market isn't big enough. I wonder though, because every single solitary commercial shooter I speak to and PM with across the country says the same thing. We all agree, but I guess a few dozen suffering pros does not a market make...:)

So my feeling is/was that PhaseOne could do themselves a favor and the end user a favor by putting some effort into this area. And because it isn't something available in any other camera body (you said so yourself) it would give them a leg up, as well as what others in this thread have mentioned.
Peace! Happy shooting!
 

jerome_m

Member
OK, but wouldn't it just be easier on everybody if LV were a camera function instead?
It seems that we don't understand each other. There is no "camera function" or "not camera function". The video signal must come from somewhere and that somewhere is either:

  1. the MF chip or
  2. another sensor

1 was not possible at all with ccd chips and is not satisfying with the present cmos chip (for reasons I could explain but this would only obscure the discussion)

2 is possible and would only require designing a video viewfinder. But it would give you a video feed, but not really "live view".

I wonder though, because every single solitary commercial shooter I speak to and PM with across the country says the same thing. We all agree, but I guess a few dozen suffering pros does not a market make...
I understand that. I am not denying that a video feed is wanted by commercial shooters. I am just explaining what the technology allows from an engineering point of view.
 

Egor

Member
Yes, a relatively inexpensive 2nd sensor built into the camera viewfinder (looks at the mirror just like OVF) with separate usb or wifi feed to LAN
That makes it a "camera function". Just like WiFi on my IQ250 is not technically a "sensor function"

In any case, thanks for the explanation, I think I get your drift. We do this all the time now in our studios, usually by attaching a cheap Canon to the viewfinder on the DF+ or ground glass on the tech cam, not sure why it would be a "engineering problem"....we use duct tape :)
 

Egor

Member
Agreed, Bill! Without WD40, Duct Tape, and Legos...not sure how I would get anything done in product studio! I am, technically, an engineer, btw...went to school and everything! :) But I just live in California, am originally from the backwoods of Virginia so don't get bogged down over-complicating matters.
Now if you see any gear of mine up fer sale in the future, kindly forget about this whole duct tape thing ok?

Jerome, maybe this is a semantics thing? What is the difference between "Live View" video feed, and "Viewing Live" + video feed??? I don't get it. Live View by definition is seeing what the camera sees, whether that is physically looking thru a viewfinder with an eyeball or viewing a facsimile video feed off a sensor is completely irrelevant. Both are "Live View". Its just that the video feed variety can be shared. I don't remember anything that stipulates that "Live View" is defined as only coming from the actual sensor that will be doing the final capture. Why would that be relevant?
 

jerome_m

Member
Jerome, maybe this is a semantics thing? What is the difference between "Live View" video feed, and "Viewing Live" + video feed??? I don't get it. Live View by definition is seeing what the camera sees, whether that is physically looking thru a viewfinder with an eyeball or viewing a facsimile video feed off a sensor is completely irrelevant. Both are "Live View". Its just that the video feed variety can be shared. I don't remember anything that stipulates that "Live View" is defined as only coming from the actual sensor that will be doing the final capture. Why would that be relevant?
What I meant is that any video feed which is not directly coming from the sensor will not have some advantages which you have been enjoying on your Canon camera, for example the ability to focus very precisely directly on the chip. But if all you need is a live video feed from your viewfinder, that may not be essential.

I have actually seen devices consisting of a small video camera to be attached to a viewfinder, which is similar to what you are doing with duct tape.
 
Last edited:

kdphotography

Well-known member
Hey Don, do I win the pool? I did say June... :D

Ok, so I cheated. I saw that the head honcho from CI was headed back from "vacationing" in Denmark.... :D

ken
 

Egor

Member
Looks good! (and hey lookiethere....detachable viewfinder and secondary sensor....hmmm) :)
I knew all that bellyaching would pay off some day! ;)

Full disclosure: I have no idea what it will really be like, just wishful thinking on my part. I am sure those are not the droids I am looking for...moving along now...

Cant wait to read all about it tomorrow!
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Yes it will be interesting but I believe it's Tuesday per other comments on lula.

Still can't see much even with a detachable viewfinder unless it's independent of the camera sensor. Since most are backs are CCD. Obviously with the newer 35x backs coming also there has to be some new comm feature required.

Expect a pretty big $$ to get there also.

Paul
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
Hey Don, do I win the pool? I did say June... :D

Ok, so I cheated. I saw that the head honcho from CI was headed back from "vacationing" in Denmark.... :D

ken
Okay, I cheated a bit as well - figured the announcement would come in June with shipping shortly afterwards. I had hoped to have one in time for my trip to the Palouse next week but looks like I'll have to wait a little longer.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
From everything that's been leaked it looks like it'll be a winner. Like the idea of same batteries in both body and back.
 

kdphotography

Well-known member
From everything that's been leaked it looks like it'll be a winner. Like the idea of same batteries in both body and back.
Using the same batteries is smart. But I really really like the EJJI Li-ion battery capacity better----I don't think anyone has run one down yet!
 
Top