Geez, there's so much in these threads.
XF compatibility - of course it is intentional and with purpose. That's in question?
Phase One prefers that you upgrade your P+ digital back that you purchased anywhere from 4-5 to 8-11 years ago. You bet they do.
Faced with the choice of creating XF compatibility for a digital back platform that was created over 10 years ago (which, despite what has been suggested, is not as simple as just telling Valdemar Gregersen over in the corner to write a few lines of code to enable the "dummy" mode), and supporting these 4 - 11 year old digital backs for use with the XF camera (probably well more difficult than supporting an IQ3, or even an IQ1), it is not surprising that Phase One opted for this path.
I find it unfortunate that the variety of digital backs have had so many varying performance features that has hampered a smooth progress forward with newer models (prime example being P45+ amazing long exposure performance and lens shift facilitation - where is that today?). This has hampered the ability in some cases for users to effectively upgrade their models. A P40+ to IQ140 upgrade isn't much of stretch, but there is no downside to this upgrade path as their might be coming from P45+ to IQ160, etc.
And from a dollar standpoint, yes, if someone owns an Aptus-II 12 and wants to go to the XF, upgrading to a Credo 80 is also not so inexpensive.
But these are modern realities - in most cases - when it comes to "digital". The majority of the tendrils that reached far back in terms of product compatibility are a hamper today, and for the most part are gone. Many companies in the digital age accept this without even questioning it, and for products far more recent than a 6 year old P65+.
I'm not saying this is right, I'm not saying this is how things should be, I'm not saying anyone doesn't have the right to feel, well, screwed. Or at best, unappreciated. But it generally is - I think - the way things are. With many modern, digital product manufacturers.
The difficult part to me is that a P65+ is one of the most recent P+ models (P40+ came out about a year later), and even 3 years ago as Wag shows, there was a substantial cost. Could Phase One have created compatibility for P40+/P65+ as a fairness gesture? Perhaps - but where do you draw the line, it is P+, so is P20+ a P+. If for P65+, why not for P20+? It is the same chassis, 98% the same technology, communication protocols. It's not an easy decision in either case - but extending backwards is definitely against how optimal digital development works today. If someone has a P30+ and is feeling put out, I understand, but .... it's a P30+. A P65+ feels like more of problem to me because it could be a somewhat recent purchase, and a not inexpensive one. My hope is that at some point, Phase One can produce a very affordable IQ upgrade path for at least P40+/P65+ owners (P40+ I don't think is that hard).
As far as the Open/Closed argument is concerned, I always felt it was a mistake by Phase One to emphasize their "openness", which was a veiled dart at Hasselblad. I thought "modularity" was a much stronger and truer talking point for a Phase One product, and a more accurate description, with regard to open/closed platforms. But really, you are going back to 2006, with the launch of the H3D series, before the notion of open or closed crossed anyone's minds. At that time, there appeared to be a lot more relevant options for medium format digital backs and also cameras, even though both Contax and Bronica had exited just in the previous year.
But today, the idea of open and closed systems feels ridiculous to me (and sort of did then). Who makes digital backs today? Phase One (Leaf), Hasselblad, Sinar. Who makes medium format cameras that accept digital backs? Phase One (Mamiya) and Hasselblad. If someone owns a Sinar digital back and wants so badly to capture from a medium format camera, then (no dis-respect to Sinar), why doesn't Sinar then make one? Does Hasselblad not make a camera that will accept an Imacon multi-shot digital back? They do!
Then what is the big deal? What I am hearing is that many users want the remaining medium format camera companies to allow digital backs made from other medium format companies to work with their camera. Maybe that will happen, but first and foremost, the manufacturer needs to answer the questions, what is the cost? what do I have to gain? And then frame those general questions more specifically to what their focused product roadmap, vision, whatever you want to call it, is for the future.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
