New Phase One Camera Arrives.

[Ben730]

Or a Fuji or a 907 or a Sony.... for much less than half.
The XC has another focus wheel, another release button, no cables etc. I find it interesting.
But don't worry, I won't be the first in the forum to buy one.
I just wanted to say that I used to have a Hasselblad V with 40 - 180 mm and a SWC 903.
A fancy XC like this would go perfectly with my XF.....

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Agree - the cardinal mistake IMHO was to NOT split the XC IQ4 adapter element from the lens.

Imagine XC23 / 40 at 12k, back adapter as a one time purchase for 7k and the grip also as one-off.

I think they'd sell a ton more XCs if they had made the XC a more modular sub platform as 20k for a one-trick pony is just a wee bit too much to really trigger the dormant demand from P1 back owners for a quasi mirrorless experience.

That's where I call into question commercial acumen sometimes.

Because next step is XC70 and if you can sell to a person three XC lenses rather than no XC lens ... I don't know. seems an easy choice to make 40k on a customer rather than 0 and if the customer only buys one kit they are still at 20k per customer - so nothing is really lost. Not sure what they are thinking.

Its again a costly misjudgement similar to the choice of not including tilt in XT glass from the getgo.

Imagine in 3y they get it and bring out an XC MK2 which is modular.

 

[ThdeDude]

Agree - the cardinal mistake IMHO was to NOT split the XC IQ4 adapter element from the lens.

Imagine XC23 / 40 at 12k, back adapter as a one time purchase for 7k and the grip also as one-off.

I think they'd sell a ton more XCs if they had made the XC a more modular sub platform as 20k for a one-trick pony is just a wee bit too much to really trigger the dormant demand from P1 back owners for a quasi mirrorless experience.

And somehow make it work also for a COPAL shutter lens. Cable release in the camera grip. Probably won't sell thousands but perhaps enough to make it worthwhile.

 

[JeRuFo]

It also seems to go a bit against their own philosophy. Being modular and fitting into existing systems used to be pretty much their sales pitch. Even though they are pretty much the only player left in this market, they seem to be aiming to incorporate every other system available in their line and the cameras become more and more bespoke. That might be a viable route, we'll have to wait and see. It might leave them really vulnerable too if all the other manufacturers start calling it quits or someone comes on the market with a 645 back for a third of the price.
I do like the idea of a compact setup with a fixed lens, but it would make more sense to me if Fuji (or maybe Hasselblad) were to do it.

 

[lookbook]

.. Fuji is probably thinking about a "Q" for medium format ..

 

[Kiwimac]

Well it looks nice but to be honest, I could buy a pretty comprehensive X2D system that was more portable, more functional and probably 95% as good for less money.
You’ve got to have a serious reason to buy this I would say and unless you’re in the top few percent of landscape photographers for whom selling 10 prints would pay for this, I can’t quite see the point.
JMO, of course.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The only reason to get it is to have the 250 megapixel option, achro option, etc. and C1 workflow.

But the lens is so stupid - it has an IC of 90mm - this is partly why an Rodie HR costs what it costs and not even that you can use.

 

[tenmangu81]

There aren't that many people who REALLY need 250 Mpx, are there ?

 

[drevil]

There aren't that many people who REALLY need 250 Mpx, are there ?

of course everyone has different needs(and desires) but i re-acquired an IQ180 for 2 reasons. its a CCD sensor and 80mp is more than enough for me, no i dont need 250mp.
others might but i really feel, hasselblad and especially fuji have gained lots of ground since the IQ4 release and HB/Fuji customers wont be lured back by P1 with an IQ5, sales might plummet even harder with an IQ5.

my 2 cents

 

[dchew]

There aren't that many people who REALLY need 250 Mpx, are there ?

We all know the answer is "no" for most deliverables: Any electronic use, magazines and most print applications.

I've thought about this ever since the next gen sensor was announced. I often deliver somewhat large prints, say 2.5 meters long. I do a lot of panoramas and to do them, I stitch two images together shifting the IQ4 150 left and right. The combined image is, you guessed it, ~ 250 Mpx. If I simply cropped instead of stitching, that would be ~ 90 Mpx. PPI is 239 for stitched vs 142 cropped. So right now, I take on additional stitching effort in the field and in processing in order to "improve" the delivered print. Obviously, "improve" is in the eye of the beholder. Is it necessary? Probably not, but for me at least it is desired enough to do the extra work.

Now, if I had a 247 Mpx 3:2 sensor, would I still stitch or would I just crop? PPI is now 289 for stitched vs 192 cropped. If I use the age-old threshold from Jeff Schewe of 180 ppi, then there is enough in the cropped image. One could argue that 180 ppi value is outdated because of the AI resizing software available today.

After all that, I don't know. I can say that if I end up still stitching with the 247 Mpx back, then the Mpx benefits of upgrading are slim to none.

Dave

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I would like to mention that there are other benefits from high res, namely if you use pixel binning sensor + you still get a 60 MPXish image with very low noise and extreme sharpness which could be interesting or they do other stuff in camera. Also one-shot cropped to 54x40 is 220 MPX.

To really judge the upgrade-worthiness it will be key how good the whole package is.

If it is literally minimum effort upgrade of the rest and just a new chip ... well not so cool.

But let's say bluetooth is added, WIFI7, a new battery system, higher performance internals, a robust tiltable screen, an EVF accessory port, etc. then all of a sudden the sum of the parts becomes enticing.

 

[rdeloe]

We all know the answer is "no" for most deliverables: Any electronic use, magazines and most print applications.

I've thought about this ever since the next gen sensor was announced. I often deliver somewhat large prints, say 2.5 meters long. I do a lot of panoramas and to do them, I stitch two images together shifting the IQ4 150 left and right. The combined image is, you guessed it, ~ 250 Mpx. If I simply cropped instead of stitching, that would be ~ 90 Mpx. PPI is 239 for stitched vs 142 cropped. So right now, I take on additional stitching effort in the field and in processing in order to "improve" the delivered print. Obviously, "improve" is in the eye of the beholder. Is it necessary? Probably not, but for me at least it is desired enough to do the extra work.

Now, if I had a 247 Mpx 3:2 sensor, would I still stitch or would I just crop? PPI is now 289 for stitched vs 192 cropped. If I use the age-old threshold from Jeff Schewe of 180 ppi, then there is enough in the cropped image. One could argue that 180 ppi value is outdated because of the AI resizing software available today.

After all that, I don't know. I can say that if I end up still stitching with the 247 Mpx back, then the Mpx benefits of upgrading are slim to none.

Dave

Doing the math does help to bring things into focus (pun totally intended!)

With the setup I have now (GFX 100S on an F-Universalis), I can make 2.5 metre panos in XPan format to print at 240 ppi. That would be more than enough if anything resembling a normal viewing distance is the baseline. At 240 ppi, even fairly close inspection would be fine.

Importantly, the number of prints I have made at that size currently is holding steady is zero. I have a sneaky feeling I may not be a customer for a future 250 MP sensor.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think its clear that its not about print size from a native one-shot, but cropability and flexibility for processing the data.

The pitch is: You just buy this back and with a 40 HR you cover a lot of ground through cropping. You open the file, crop to compose and still have 150 left, etc.

The point about that in particlular is that it allows you to work more easily free hand w/o tripod.

On top you can sharpen or run noise reduction algos and then reduce size and have an extremely high quality file courtesy of supersampling + computation.

Lastly, maybe they implement specific tricks which make use of these pixels in a good way, e.g. sensor + stuff.

In sum: the new IQ5 is extremely flexible - its the ultimate canvas for post production.

 

[jng]

We all know the answer is "no" for most deliverables: Any electronic use, magazines and most print applications.

I've thought about this ever since the next gen sensor was announced. I often deliver somewhat large prints, say 2.5 meters long. I do a lot of panoramas and to do them, I stitch two images together shifting the IQ4 150 left and right. The combined image is, you guessed it, ~ 250 Mpx. If I simply cropped instead of stitching, that would be ~ 90 Mpx. PPI is 239 for stitched vs 142 cropped. So right now, I take on additional stitching effort in the field and in processing in order to "improve" the delivered print. Obviously, "improve" is in the eye of the beholder. Is it necessary? Probably not, but for me at least it is desired enough to do the extra work.

Now, if I had a 247 Mpx 3:2 sensor, would I still stitch or would I just crop? PPI is now 289 for stitched vs 192 cropped. If I use the age-old threshold from Jeff Schewe of 180 ppi, then there is enough in the cropped image. One could argue that 180 ppi value is outdated because of the AI resizing software available today.

After all that, I don't know. I can say that if I end up still stitching with the 247 Mpx back, then the Mpx benefits of upgrading are slim to none.

Dave

Dave,

Call it a hunch, but my guess is that old habits die hard and you will still be stitching even if you find yourself with a higher pixel count back. And besides, it's not all about the megapixels - by stitching you're creating a larger template from which to enlarge, which ultimately should allow you to deliver a better print. At least in your eye as the beholder!

John

 

[Paul Spinnler]

No one excited about the benefits of supersampling?? You can slightly sharpen and then resize, for example. Or just go with sensor+ at 60 MPX.

Should be ISO400 as base for the IQ5 Achro.

 

[darr]

I'm not sure convenience and creativity always go hand in hand. Using a single-lens 250px digital camera that only allows cropping as a replacement for different lenses doesn't truly reflect how focal perspectives function. Personally, I enjoy using longer lenses for panoramas, as it lets me create a view that's different from what a normal or wide-angle lens would offer. Restricting myself to just cropping isn't how I want to work—it's limiting, not convenient. I honestly stopped buying Phase One after the P45, but good luck to them.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Its more about what the'll try to stress when selling it; it does not necessarily mean that it "crop-to-compose" will be sth a lot of photographers will massively cherish.

I just think they need to spin it smh and I think it will center around the enormous flexibility of 250 MPX in post I think.

I mean the marketing tagline probably won’t say: “IQ5 - more megapixels than you will ever need”

 

[ThdeDude]

There aren't that many people who REALLY need 250 Mpx, are there ?

Me enfant terrible jumping in here again, I feel what most P1 users want is not more resolution but a better user experience!

Being a technical camera user, I have now a fall-back option the HB CFV-100c (hopefully a Mark II won't be so bare-bone) but my eye, camera, and lens selection is geared towards the 645 format, and hence I am stuck here with P1 (the now discontinued H system is not a valid alternative).

 

[Paul Spinnler]

What I find funny is that the concept of "need" regularly comes up regarding resolution with every new sensor from people who rhethorically ask "who needs this"; clearly, since arguably the P30/P45 days, we are beyond "need". Who needs 150 megapixels?

I personally think although the megapixels might go to waste in the sense that the end medium is smaller (large or small print, web, pc desktop), the extra res allows for more flexibility in post (processing, crop) and its a bonus if the native print size increases, of course.

 

[rdeloe]

I think "need" comes up because some people genuinely evaluate their equipment needs. This evaluation may be based on cost, return on investment, outputs for the work, a personal evaluation of skill level, and/or an assessment of the kinds of work and the setting.

If money is no object, then need is irrelevant and one can decide based solely on want.