Phase One News: XF Body, IQ3 backs, 35LS, 120LS, C1 8.3, Website

[kdphotography]

I think for most folks here that have put up with the PoS called the DF for 5,6 or even more years,....

I think that calling the DF body a "PoS" is a bit harsh. I come from a time of using the original Mamiya 645AF and 645AFD (film), and even used the original 645AFD with a MFDB.

You just need to lower your standards. :ROTFL:

The significant generational improvements did not appear until the Phase AF and finally the DF body. Using the rechargeable Li-ion battery pack and making sure that both DF firmware and MFDB firmware are compatible (up to date), the DF is a good platform, not the best, but it works.

I really don't need all the bells and whistles that the XF offers, except the basics, such as much improved AF performance. The XF will stay closer to studio and no way do I plan on lugging that body around on landscape excursions. Cambo all the way!

The bottom line is if you want all that medium format digital has to offer, you're gonna pay. Plain and simple, it costs money to be in Dante's world. And at the same time, it's all part of business. If I get a $2K trade-in, I'm happy. I think.

ken

 

[T.Dascalos]

Faster. Can hand-hold!

Same applies to other (older) MF and most DSLRs these days...

 

[jerome_m]

It's the business model that I don't agree with here, not the performance of any particular dealer.
(...)
To reiterate. There is nothing special whatsoever about Phase One gear that requires a complex and costly support structure selling products to consumers through what are more akin to franchise partnerships than manufacturer>distributor>retailer.

I have worked (in retail) on both the franchisor and franchisee side of the business (same brand on each), and also built financial planning systems for both sides of the relationship. I know how these business models work and the additional margins that have to be added in to support such a structure.

Why should you need a dealer to "go to bat" for you with the manufacturer? If there's a problem with any equipment (not of your doing) and it's under warranty, then it gets fixed. That's the law.

(...)

But at the end of the day, as far as I'm concerned they are just shifting boxes. That's all I need them for. Why - if I want Phase One products - should I have to pay additional margins to support a business model that provides no benefit to me whatsoever?

You are saying that MF dealers are only used for warranty repairs and that sales are simply shifting boxes. I don't think it is true for most of the intended customers. I believe that most of the customers require a very hight amount of pre-sales services: loaners and demo, re-sale of used equipment, maybe even some basic courses about the manufacturer's software. This kind of service can only be supported by the additional margins built into the franchise model. It is not because you do not need these services that the majority of the customers is in the same situation. Apparently, you are not Phase's core market, that's all.

 

[Ken_R]

I think that calling the DF body a "PoS" is a bit harsh. I come from a time of using the original Mamiya 645AF and 645AFD (film), and even used the original 645AFD with a MFDB.

You just need to lower your standards. :ROTFL:

The significant generational improvements did not appear until the Phase AF and finally the DF body. Using the rechargeable Li-ion battery pack and making sure that both DF firmware and MFDB firmware are compatible (up to date), the DF is a good platform, not the best, but it works.

I really don't need all the bells and whistles that the XF offers, except the basics, such as much improved AF performance. The XF will stay closer to studio and no way do I plan on lugging that body around on landscape excursions. Cambo all the way!

The bottom line is if you want all that medium format digital has to offer, you're gonna pay. Plain and simple, it costs money to be in Dante's world. And at the same time, it's all part of business. If I get a $2K trade-in, I'm happy. I think.

ken

+1

Once you use a tech camera for landscapes there is no going back to lugging around a MF SLR for landscapes. The tech camera lenses are much more compact and easy to filter. Never mind the huge movement capability, image quality improvements and much lighter weight of the whole setup.

That said the XF body looks amazing and the increased functionality is just superb. It is a camera platform for many years to come. Kudos to PhaseOne.

 

[T.Dascalos]

.....the XF body looks amazing and the increased functionality is just superb. It is a camera platform for many years to come. Kudos to PhaseOne.

It most certainly does... the problem with it is rather a marketing one than a functional one... it aims to exclude photographers that want a (current & future) "freedom of choice" for the progress of their photography... there is a threat to turn them into "factory financial victims" as far as their future plan is concerned... Same as Hasselblad tried in the past...

 

[Ken_R]

It most certainly does... the problem with it is rather a marketing one than a functional one... it aims to exclude photographers that want a (current & future) "freedom of choice" for the progress of their photography... there is a threat to turn them into "factory financial victims" as far as their future plan is concerned... Same as Hasselblad tried in the past...

With Hasselblad it is very different. You basically needed to buy and use the back mated with that particular body. You could not buy an H back without a body (new). And of course Hasselblad does not make their backs with other mounts. With phase you can buy the XF separately and use it with any Phase/Mamiya mount IQ1xx/IQ2xx back ever made. New or used. (And of course with the new IQ3xx backs and soon any Leaf Credo back) and Phase is making the IQ backs in other mounts still. Even the new IQ380 is available in Hasselblad H and V mount.

That is being pretty open IMHO.

 

[jerome_m]

With Hasselblad it is very different. You basically needed to buy and use the back mated with that particular body. You could not buy an H back without a body (new).

Actually, if you try it, you will find out that Hasselblad backs are not linked to a given body. I know that the official word is that the back is matched to a single body, but it appears to work nevertheless.

You cannot buy a new back without a body, that is true.

 

[mjr]

I have to agree with Ken R, I don't think it's quite as conspiratory as some may claim, Phase does provide backs for other mounts, surely it would be down to other manufacturers to make their backs available in the Phase mount?

The fact that P series backs won't work must be simply down to connectivity, they were designed and built in a very different technological era, the IQ series were obviously updated to reflect the future camera design and so work in a very different way. Sad for existing owners of these backs but there are still lots of options, they haven't just stopped working!

The XF looks to be fantastic for one important reason, the fact that they have built it with the view to it being upgradable via firmware rather than the cycle of upgrade that most other manufacturers go in for, it looks like a body that will last for many generations of back.

I am not in the market for one because personal preference sees me absolutely love the Leica S but if it was a body I wanted it would be a business expense and amortised over 3 years would be perfectly doable, if I wasn't expecting to earn enough money to cover it over that time I'd be in trouble!

I know we are all passionate about our business/hobby/passion but sometimes the posts on here are pretty aggressive, I wonder if that's strictly necessary?

Have a nice evening!

Mat

 

[Uaiomex]

Il commendatore once said: "A Ferrari is a red twelve-cylinder car".
I guess nothing is sacred anymore.

Eduardo

I remember seeing an interview in Mexico with M.R. in video some years back... they promised to keep the system "open" there... didn't they? They even criticized Hasselblad (heavily) for closing theirs at those days.... Now it turns the other way around... XF is the "closed" system and H5X by far the most "open" platform....

 

[T.Dascalos]

With Hasselblad it is very different. You basically needed to buy and use the back mated with that particular body. You could not buy an H back without a body (new). And of course Hasselblad does not make their backs with other mounts. With phase you can buy the XF separately and use it with any Phase/Mamiya mount IQ1xx/IQ2xx back ever made. New or used. (And of course with the new IQ3xx backs and soon any Leaf Credo back) and Phase is making the IQ backs in other mounts still. Even the new IQ380 is available in Hasselblad H and V mount.

That is being pretty open IMHO.

Ι Βelieve you aren't well informed Ken... you can't use a P series back on the XF, neither you can use a third party back made for m645 mount... and I doubt you can use IQ3 with H or V bodies... (although I'm not sure...)... it is a closed system (as a platform) for IQ backs only... no multishot, no film, not an ability to retain an older back... all that H5X does offer.

 

[jlm]

the H1 and H2 and i think the Hx will all take phase backs as will the V series (with a cable connection)

 

[T.Dascalos]

Il commendatore once said: "A Ferrari is a red twelve-cylinder car".
I guess nothing is sacred anymore.

Eduardo

Hi Eduardo... Enzo did say that once, and even decided to paint all the cars "Maranello red wine" for a couple of years if I remember well back in late 70s or very early 80s.... but again there are some differences with the subject we are discussing here...
1. There is no Enzo with P1... 2. It is a camera offered in one color only... 3. It never had 12 cylinders in tradition... 4. It was never an Alfa Romeo once upon the time.... 5. It comes from a company that made no cameras up until recently... I'm sure you understand the humor behind all this...

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I must say that my DF (and the AFD before it) has been a good camera. Sure, it doesn't have the bells and whistles of modern DSLRs, but I never use those things anyway. I just need easily set speeds and aperture.

The autofocus is admittedly slow and antediluvian but who really needs autofocus outside of sports? I spent 40 years before I got my first AF camera and I don't think non-autofocus held me back at all. Even now most of my images are manual focus.

So I'm an old fogey who remembers 4 by 5 inch and Rollei photography and can't quite believe the ease that modern cameras bring - even the DF.

As for the trade-in value of $2000, that seems pretty fair to me. My DF has been very well used, the paint rubbed in a few places, is quite a few years old and has thousands of actuations. I couldn't sell it for that price.

At the end of the day, you don't have to trade if you think $2,000 isn't good enough.

 

[stephengilbert]

Oops. For a minute there I thought this was LuLa.

Theodoros, why the different name here?

 

[T.Dascalos]

Oops. For a minute there I thought this was LuLa.

Theodoros, why the different name here?

Hi Stephen... Its the original I started on all other forums with... I'll change it to "Theodoros" as long as I will bother to search how to do so.... :angel:

 

[f8orbust]

It's the business model that I don't agree with here...

+1

 

[Mgreer316]

The autofocus is admittedly slow and antediluvian but who really needs autofocus outside of sports?

I DO! I don't care about speed. I care about predictable accuracy. Ever tried to capture a 150mm f2.8 shot with focus on the left eye? I can't do this manually and I find this to be nearly impossible of the 645DF. With the 5D3 I can nail this every time. Additionally, I have a RZ67 Pro IID that I can also shoot with my Credo back. But my eyesight isn't good enough to consistently manual focus the camera. So I can't use it. I depend on AF for this reason. I shoot ZERO sports. So yea, there are non sports people who require good AF performance.

As for the trade-in value of $2000, that seems pretty fair to me. My DF has been very well used, the paint rubbed in a few places, is quite a few years old and has thousands of actuations. I couldn't sell it for that price.

At the end of the day, you don't have to trade if you think $2,000 isn't good enough.

Bill, what you've said is based on your needs, requirements, and experience. Please be aware that there are other valid needs, requirements, and experiences. If the XF was $4k, then $2k trade in would be fair IMO. But at $8k, I think a $2k trade in is woefully insufficient. And that $2k is not universal. If the DF was a solid performer, then my opinion would be different. But IMO, the DF is and has been a flawed product. So to command a premium to replace a flawed product with a hopefully competent product is not right. Just my opinion.

 

[jerome_m]

I DO! I don't care about speed. I care about predictable accuracy. Ever tried to capture a 150mm f2.8 shot with focus on the left eye? I can't do this manually and I find this to be nearly impossible of the 645DF. With the 5D3 I can nail this every time. Additionally, I have a RZ67 Pro IID that I can also shoot with my Credo back. But my eyesight isn't good enough to consistently manual focus the camera. So I can't use it. I depend on AF for this reason. I shoot ZERO sports. So yea, there are non sports people who require good AF performance.

Same here. Although I have very good eyesight and can focus manually with the necessary accuracy, I find it extremely convenient that I just need to point my camera to the subject and get it in focus. My H4D does it relatively slowly compared to a 5D3, but faster than me and with very good accuracy (within millimetres for portraits). I never shoot sports and mainly shoot static subjects.

I am a bit surprised to hear that the 645DF cannot focus correctly. Maybe your particular camera needs to be adjusted? On the H4D with the 100mm f/2.2, I have no problem focussing on the left (or right) eye.

 

[Mgreer316]

Jerome, when I first got my camera, I couldn't believe nothing was wrong with it. I sent it in to the MAC Group for service. I them sent it to Capture Integration for service. But times I was informed it was performing ad designed. After conversations with CI personnel and other users, I finally convinced myself nothing was actually wrong with my camera. But my experience with 35mm SLRs, both film and digital, skewed my expectations. I honestly couldn't believe the medium format community accepted thus level Of focusing. But I then realized that there were a TON of landscape photographers. Their priorities were different than mine. I also realized that many shot MF and didn't rely on AF. On hindsight, I probably should've gone the Hasselblad route with True Focus. But the prospect of using the RZ and the DF won me over. I knew the AF performance of the DF wasn't DSLR level. But I didn't expect it to be as bad as it is. The main problem is the focus point is just too big for pinpoint accuracy. I have to pump the shutter 3 sometimes 4 times to make sure I'm locked on what I want to be locked on. And sometimes that's still not good enough.

 

[Mgreer316]

To clarify the eyesight thing, I wear varifocals. I have to raise and lower and head to find the sweet spot for focused scenes. Even then, I struggle with whether I'm seeing things accurately or not. It's gotten on my nerves so much I'm seriously considering Lasik surgery. So AF is critical to me successfully capturing in focus images.