Phase One IQ5 – Sony 247 MPX – 3:2 – will you get it?

[SCHWARZZEIT]

SVS-Vistek has listed industrial cameras with the new 245.8MP IMX811 sensor to be in development (monochrome and color version).
Given the restructuring of Phase One and the fact that the sensor is made for factory automation applications I can imagine that Phase One will introduce an industrial camera with the IMX811 before any IQ back.

Since the market is very different from 2018 when the IQ4 was introduced and expected sales numbers of potential IQ5 units are substantially lower I wonder whether Phase One is bothering to put in the R&D effort necessary to redesign the back around all new components or just update components which they'll also use in their geospatial/industrial products.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I think they can leverage the IQ4 and just update the internals - there's a lot of pent-up upgrade demand.

Although I myself don't like the thought, lol, I'll probably upgrade and I think a lot of people in the end will cave if they just get the basics right, meaning:

+ 25k with trade-in -> more I am out and a lot of folks I guess too if you can only buy it for 45k
+ Some improvements on the basic lists of things to update, like EVF, battery, I/O, etc.
+ NO PDAF so I can use my SK glass and UWAs from Rodenstock

My intel says the back is coming and the photo division has already been restructured - they completely changed the supply chain setup, removed sales reps and focused the bespoke management to very few people.

So it doesnt take much for them to be in the black numbers and the recent product launches actually indicate that they are re-launching the business a bit with the IQ5.

So IQ5 + XT XL will come next.

Keep your IQ4 -> and save 25k for the trade-in!

 

[Doppler9000]

Since the market is very different from 2018 when the IQ4 was introduced and expected sales numbers of potential IQ5 units are substantially lower I wonder whether Phase One is bothering to put in the R&D effort necessary to redesign the back around all new components or just update components which they'll also use in their geospatial/industrial products.

This is key. The 100 MP 33x44mm competitors weren’t a factor when the last generation was released. While not perfect substitutes, these cameras certainly reduce the potential market for Phase. In addition, we have a shrinking market overall, AI sharpening tools, AI image-generation tools, and downward price pressure for the final product.

Is there enough left to develop a new, $40K+ back and get an ROI?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

For the hardcore tech cam community, there's no real substitute to Phase backs.

The studio photographer has been lost, I think, to Fuji et Hassy, but fine art and the tech cam aficionados will still shoot Phase.

C1 compatibility is a biggie and non-negotiable for some, as is the compatibility with tech cam glass with wide IC for movements, stitching and just the nostalgia of that way of working.

90% of people don't pay list - they upgrade. I have continuously been in the trade-in loop since the late 2000s, so the real price is more like 20k-30k, depending on the back of course.

There's tens of thousands of phase backs out there, at peak the sold a few thousand per year I was told by a sales rep once.

That population of backs including the legendary IQ4 are upgrade candidates.

Hassy et Fuji for the hardcore tech cam peeps are also not forcibly a subsitute, but a complement.

You can have an IQ3 100 on an Alpa + a X2D for travel and fun.

 

[Doppler9000]

90% of people don't pay list - they upgrade. I have continuously been in the trade-in loop since the late 2000s, so the real price is more like 20k-30k, depending on the back of course.

The real price is the sum of the upgrade cost plus the amount the owner could get by selling their existing back.

They may not phrase it that way to their spouse, however.

Hassy et Fuji for the hardcore tech cam peeps are also not forcibly a substitute, but a complement.

Unless ‘hardcore’ is being used tautologically, the CFV backs are clearly substitutes for at least some tech cam users. This takes potential buyers out of the market for the new Phase back.

 

[vieri]

Ironically, after years of digital progress we might have gotten to a point where analog 4x5" could actually be a pretty good substitute for the hardcore tech camera users (B&W shooters, at least).

Perhaps someone will start producing Imacon / Hassy like scanners again, with USB-c Thunderbolt interfaces, since the existing ones have serious connectivity limitations.

Best,

Vieri

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The real price is the sum of the upgrade cost plus the amount the owner could get by selling their existing back.

They may not phrase it that way to their spouse, however.


Unless ‘hardcore’ is being used tautologically, the CFV backs are clearly substitutes for at least some tech cam users. This takes potential buyers out of the market for the new Phase back.

You are right, I am not considering a sale of a back anytime soon!

I agree it is a substitute for some, but then again - it is a hamstrung product given its limitations with UWAs - the main reason to shoot shiftable backs on tech cams!

 

[Doppler9000]

I agree it is a substitute for some, but then again - it is a hamstrung product given its limitations with UWAs - the main reason to shoot shiftable backs on tech cams!

Given that Fuji solved the banding issues with essentially the same sensor, it may be that Hasselblad will develop and release a firmware upgrade to address the banding.

At the limit, the Phase backs will be better, but the window has narrowed for them.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Given that Fuji solved the banding issues with essentially the same sensor, it may be that Hasselblad will develop and release a firmware upgrade to address the banding.

At the limit, the Phase backs will be better, but the window has narrowed for them.

Yes but is the incident angle of the optics on those cameras the same? There's no like-for-like example of a Fuji camera attached to a view camera with the UWAs because precisely you cannot focus to infinity with the very wides. Its not a digital back and the problem arises when using tech cam UWAs.

The CFV100 was widely expected by many as a sort of saviour back - bringing BSI to the masses - but then it turned out to be problematic with precisely that glass.

Fujis are not used as tech cam backs for UWAs and with their own optics they can construct them so there's no issue.

By now it is surprising that there's no "fix" for the UWA banding issue on the CFV line of backs and it may be indicative of the fact that it is technically not possible? Its been a awhile since it is known and I'd say it qualified as a class A issue to be resolved to sell the back.

 

[mristuccia]

We have already at least two manual solutions for the PDAF banding based on LCC that works pretty darn well. Plus a solution embedded in Raw Therapy. So I would not give that much weight to this issue. And one can record a PS action which does everything automatically.

The only real deal is sensor real estate plus some firmware automated features which speed up the process, and the stellar price.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

We have already at least two manual solutions for the PDAF banding based on LCC that works pretty darn well. Plus a solution embedded in Raw Therapy. So I would not give that much weight to this issue. And one can record a PS action which does everything automatically.

The only real deal is sensor real estate plus some firmware automated features which speed up the process, and the stellar price.

Granted, I am not following in detail the state of this problem, but its cool if this workflow works for some people - I am just saying with Phase backs everything works, mustn't just be the IQ4, also the other backs work great with C1, which I personally prefer as RAW developer.

Great if the CFV can be made to shine with its own suite of tools.

 

[Doppler9000]

Yes but is the incident angle of the optics on those cameras the same? There's no like-for-like example of a Fuji camera attached to a view camera with the UWAs because precisely you cannot focus to infinity with the very wides. Its not a digital back and the problem arises when using tech cam UWAs.

You are correct, of course, the Fuji-as-digital-back is limited to ~ 35mm. But users have gotten the Schneider XL 35mm to work without the banding seen on the Hasselblad.

 

[wattsy]

Is the CFV 100 banding problem even known about outside a few forums? I can't imagine it has had a dramatic impact on sales to tech cam users out in the wider world.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I would like to mention this: according to CIPA, there were about 6m ILC cameras sold in 2023, if I remember correctly.

In its heyday P1 sold a few thousand backs per year, I have a figure of around 4-5k in memory from a few years back. Now of course a lot less, maybe sub 1k – who knows.

Hasselblad will be in another league nowadays at the 8k price point, maybe between 5k backs with the new one, probably less too.

5k out of 6m is approximately 0.08%.

So out of all the Hassy back buyers, how many intend to slap it onto an Arca or Alpa with a Rodenstock 32mm or even 28XL on an Alpa?

Not many, maybe a few hundred.

There were 50 28 XLs made for Alpa, maybe 200 in total across systems, who knows how many of these are still functional and in use.

Without further running the numbers – it is a very, very niche product and if you hit 1k buyers in this niche, niche, you are already at the top.

No one cares, I think except a few specialists.

How many architectural photographers even own a 43XL or 60XL?

Not many. We are operating in the realm of 0.003% of the market, based on newly sold, which be somewhere between 150-200 units, and on an even smaller scale on a total market basis.

 

[rdeloe]

Yes but is the incident angle of the optics on those cameras the same? There's no like-for-like example of a Fuji camera attached to a view camera with the UWAs because precisely you cannot focus to infinity with the very wides. Its not a digital back and the problem arises when using tech cam UWAs.

Is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35/5.6 and UWA for you? It works great on my GFX 100S with F-Universalis. There is no banding. Wider than that is out -- so your point stands in that respect.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35/5.6 and UWA for you? It works great on my GFX 100S with F-Universalis. There is no banding. Wider than that is out -- so your point stands in that respect.

Guys - what's the point here.

Both Fuji and Hasselblad take the 100 MPX sensor and implement their own AF systems on top of it. Whether the PDAF between Fuji and Hasselblad is similar on a hardware level – I don't know. But the point is this:

1) If you are a pure tech cam shooter, ie working with Rodenstock or SK glass, you DONT need PDAF.
2) The new CFV has an implementation which creates banding issues with UWAs – so its a no-go for them and also for me to even consider it;
3) If the CFV would work with C1 AND have no PDAF artifacts, I'd be interested, mainly because of HNCS and the compatibility with V cameras

So without knowing why and what kind of differences there are between the PDAF implementations of Fuji and Hasselblad it is moot for me to discuss nuances - I just know for myself these two points make it not a replacement option at all.

Of course some people might be happy to use RAW Therapee or to roundrip files via PS etc. - but I just prefer to have a hassle-free in-C1 experience with the tech cam lenses I own.

I am not sure, but its at least my impression that the big hype around the CFV back imploded a bit once the first user reviews came in - at least for tech cam people. Not saying at all that it is a capable system within the 907x context and with Hassy glass.

 

[rdeloe]

Guys - what's the point here.

My point was that you can use Fuji GFX on a "technical camera" with at least one wide angle lens. I do it all the time. I wouldn't want someone reading this thread to think that you can't use a GFX body as a "back" with at least one excellent wide angle.

I understand it's not an option you want to use Paul.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

No it is useable, but it just requires some considerations.

If you have 8k for a tech cam kit, you can as well get an IQ3 100 which works beautifully with Rodie glass (I think with SK it is not as good as the BSI stuff) and you don't have to worry with issues in post. Or the sleeper hit IQ3 trichromatic, for that matter - which somehow has a bit different look, at least from the files I had looked at back in the day I remembered a very nice reproduction of saturation.

 

[Doppler9000]

One of the points is that a back with a BSI 33x44mm is capable of being used with a wide angle lens at least as wide as 35mm. Because of the 27mm FFD on the GFX, we can’t readily test wider lenses, though it may be that they work, as well.

Hopefully Hasselblad addresses the issue.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Is the Schneider-Kreuznach APO-Digitar 35/5.6 and UWA for you? It works great on my GFX 100S with F-Universalis. There is no banding. Wider than that is out -- so your point stands in that respect.

In 35mm terms, 21mm is typically the focal length where I’d start to speak about Ultra Wide; Leica implemented the level below 24mm also as the Ultra Wide threshold, with the nomenclature “super” for a 21 FoV equivalent lens or below in 35mm terms.

On full frame MFD that’s right in between 37mm and 33mm where the threshold starts, so a 35 could be considered very wide or ultra wide while the 32, 28, 23mm focal lengths would qualify as Ultra wide IMHO.

The 32 HR is an architectural photography staple as is the 23 HR for interiors. So these would clearly be “ultra”. According to Rosenstock the 32 HR is one of their absolute best sellers (had a discussion about this one when they were thinking about doing a 90 IC 25mm at one point)