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!

Dear Phase One - it's 2015! Where is my modern FF back??!

narikin

New member
Dear Phase One,

I have been committed to our relationship for 10 years now, faithfully through D800's, A7R's, but am starting to look at other wome... camera options, because they are giving me things you are failing to provide:

I need a modern back, that has 'Live View' EVF out option, so I can set an EVF on my camera, enlarge focus and nail it.
I need focus peaking on the screen & EVF to confirm that
I need modern really clean ISO up to 1600. No, Sensor+ does not hack it.
I need full frame, and at least 80Mp, preferably 100mp

I would love dedicated AF sensors built into the sensor too (like all the latest Sony ones) but can make do if you give me EVF out.

Yes, "I", "I" "I", but this relationship is about me and my work, my $, and most important: my creativity.

In plain speak: Divorce is on the cards if you can't get with the times, announce an IQ3-100 with FF Sony Sensor this year. Sorry, but that's how it looks.
 
Last edited:
Dear Phase One,

I have been committed to our relationship for 10 years now, faithfully through D800's, A7R's, but am starting to look at other wome... camera options, because they are giving me things you are failing to provide:

I need a modern back, that has 'Live View' OVF out option, so I can set an OVF on my camera, enlarge focus and nail it.
I need focus peaking on the screen & OVF to confirm that
I need modern really clean ISO up to 1600. No, Sensor+ does not hack it.
I need full frame, and at least 80Mp, preferably 100mp

I would love dedicated AF sensors built into the sensor too (like all the latest Sony ones) but can make do if you give me OVF out.

Yes, "I", "I" "I", but this relationship is about me and my work, my $, and most important: my creativity.

In plain speak: Divorce is on the cards if you can't get with the times, announce an IQ3-100 with FF Sony Sensor this year. Sorry, but that's how it looks.
Shouldn't your salutation include Sony, Dalsa, etc.?

Alvin
 

miska

Member
I don't even dare to think how much such a back will cost. :shocked:
Perhaps a Hassi CFV version of it, for us Tech-cam shooters ?
 

narikin

New member
I don't even dare to think how much such a back will cost. :shocked:
Perhaps a Hassi CFV version of it, for us Tech-cam shooters ?
at over $35,000 for an IQ380 I think we deserve a far, far more modern sensor & the associated abilities that come with that price.
 

narikin

New member
their CMOS backs come close, with the exception of the crop factor

Crop factor, no EVF option, no focus peaking and not enough MP.
Canon is at 50Mp now, Sony 42, so - really, it's not enough to distinguish the investment required and compromises you need to make without double the Mp of those cameras.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
XF + IQ250/IQ350 has three of the four...

iOS device (attached or freely held) for EVF including live view at up to 400% magnification

Focus Mask after capture for focus peaking (though I agree having it in live view would be nice, and I suspect you'll see that at some point). Also at 400% visually focusing with high-frame-rate live view on a large bright iOS device (i.e. iPhone 6 Plus or iPad mini) is very very good.

Very good ISO

It is not full frame. Though it's still twice as big as a full frame 35mm. You could say it's fuller frame (my instagram handle!).

It also offers a WLF, customizable exposure warning, true raw-based clipping warning, zone system heat map, long exposure calculator, sensor heat monitor, movable grids and guides, wireless or on screen ratings (1-5 stars) carried into raw import, GPS geotagging, a range of Schneider leaf shutter lenses with native sync up to 1/1600th, compatibility with tech cameras and wide angle Rodenstock HR lenses, and a host of other things that distinguish it from a Canon with lots of pixels crammed in.
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
Apparently my new XF and IQ380 has just arrived at my dealer. The wait is nearly over!

For me, 80 mpx is perfectly sufficient - it's the new body I really need.
 

jerome_m

Member
I need a modern back, that has 'Live View' EVF out option, so I can set an EVF on my camera, enlarge focus and nail it.
I need focus peaking on the screen & EVF to confirm that
I need modern really clean ISO up to 1600. No, Sensor+ does not hack it.
I need full frame, and at least 80Mp, preferably 100mp

Is the situation so bad?

I mean: I would not mind a better camera, back, etc... but is any of this necessary? Basically, you want:
1: better focus control abilities (through an EVF)
2: iso 1600
3: full frame with more pixels

So I wonder:
1: is focus so difficult? I find the AF on my camera accurate enough
2: does everybody shoot in darkness? I find that I mostly use iso 50-200 on all my cameras.
3: I can't see much difference between 2 cameras under at least 50% more pixels.
 

Stan ROX

Member
Then, on the other hand:

Looking at car manufacturers and see what they can deliver at 35'000 bucks, it's very clear that there IS a gap.

Everybody may have different flavors of what he/her is missing, but the level of technology delivered in a Digital Back is really not that complicated.
Imagine a car, manufactured from - lets say - 100'000 single pieces - you get an idea that there is still a lot room for improvement.
Imagine a standard laptop, with screen, Wifi, SSD-Disk, and on and on and on.

Let's start with in-body image stabilisation for Digital Backs. Should not be impossible. My newly aquired Olympus EM-5 MkII has this new 5-axis stabilisation, and after one shot in the almost dark night to a compay logo (just for fun, but tack sharp) I can clearly say that there is application for such technology.

Dear Phase One - it IS 2015. It's not only Megpixels anymore.
 

jerome_m

Member
Then, on the other hand:

Looking at car manufacturers and see what they can deliver at 35'000 bucks, it's very clear that there IS a gap.
If you look at the cars which are manufactured with production runs similar to the ones of MF cameras, they cost a premium as well.

Everybody may have different flavors of what he/her is missing, but the level of technology delivered in a Digital Back is really not that complicated.
Imagine a car, manufactured from - lets say - 100'000 single pieces - you get an idea that there is still a lot room for improvement.
Imagine a standard laptop, with screen, Wifi, SSD-Disk, and on and on and on.
You don't have to go that far. Manufacturing a Nikon or Canon DSLR is just as complex mechanically as manufacturing a MF SLR, yet the MF costs a lot more, because the production run is much smaller.

Let's start with in-body image stabilisation for Digital Backs. Should not be impossible. My newly aquired Olympus EM-5 MkII has this new 5-axis stabilisation, and after one shot in the almost dark night to a compay logo (just for fun, but tack sharp) I can clearly say that there is application for such technology.
I sure would like that, but would it make sense? Would it be really useful for the kind of pictures one gets a MF camera for? Wouldn't it make more sense to use a general DSLR like your EM-5 or a Sony A7-II for the kind of pictures one needs stab for?

I mean: I would appreciate more features in my camera as much as the next guy, of course. But I don't actually need these "modern" features in my MF. I did not buy a MF for that and probably neither did you. I bought a MF because it is not a "modern" camera. I bought a MF because it is a different, specialised tool. I would not mind that particular tool to be more universal, but I don't need it. I bought it for what it can do that no other camera can, not to do what other cameras can.
 
Some good points. Focus peaking will let you down though, it's not accurate enough thus far in my experience.

My question would be, how long are people going to put up with these insanely inflated prices? If Pentax can make a Z for $8500 dollars which has many components, not all, but many that are better constructed and thought out vs Phase and Hasselblad, why does a back still cost as much as a really nice car? It's such a joke. They're expensive because they're low volume, but they're low volume because they're expensive! I guess it would put the rental businesses out if they don't just buy what Phase has available so they have to pay the 35 grand for an IQ380, and then there are maybe 100 studios and Sheikhs in Dubai that buy them... Why doesn't Hasselblad want to dominate the high end wedding market with the H5D-50c? I know and work with some folks that really are the highest paid in the industry here in NYC and elsewhere, and they're not buying one, no way. They're looking at the Z a lot, but the crop factor is more of a limiter than the actual price. If they wanna go MFD they want a real 645 at least. Considering 16mp is enough for a wedding, we want sensor size and high ISO more than detail. I know a lot of people that would consider the CVF-50C, but again, it's more expensive than the Pentax by almost double, and there is just no reason for that. (Don't get me started on Hasselblad's 10 year old scanners that somehow still cost the same as in 2007).
 

stephengilbert

Active member
I bought a MF because it is not a "modern" camera. An idea too often ignored in these threads.

What if you want a manual transmission in your car? It seems that paddle shifters are "better," so everyone has to have them or be outdated.

It's possible that some people don't want their digital back for video, don't you think?
 

jlm

Workshop Member
i'm pretty good with a manual trans, shift lever operated or foot (either foot) for motorcycles.

had paddle shifters on my bmw sport automatic car; never got the hang of them
 
Top