Phase One XT users happy (eg re shift)

[Paul Spinnler]

Hi there

I see very little discussion on the XT. Lorenzo likes it. But then who else?

Is this thing selling at all? How do people fare wit limited usage of IC (eg in case of 70HR, but also 32HR!) and are some considering switching?

I tried one, but the high price of lenses - 50 4.0 rumoured to be 10K EUR like the 32!! plus the limited shift and inability to use it with my ALPA keeps me from investing. I don't yet have a 32, and I'd like to have one, but then I could not use it on my Alpa and the little XT doesn't use its full potential. Same goes for the tele 138 - would love to have a compact setup AND option to stich ...

So curious to hear what other forum members think about it and whether people are switching.

I think Drew Altdoerffer (cheers if you see this) missed the spot a bit with just 12mm stitch. Maybe it was to not compete with the compact Cambo itself, but I just wish they would do an XT with Alpa mount, license out the connection plate so that other tech cam manufacturers can become cable free an integrate half press shutter mechanisms or just announce an XT XL with tilt and 22.5 shift in all directions ...

Many thanks
Paul

 

[Alan]

I’d love to like it but…

For me, the point of using a tech cam is the movements. I like to have 1/2 the short dimension of the sensor as available shift. 12mm shift is enough for a 35mm sensor, not for MF.

Some will say the lenses don’t have the image circle for that much shift. Some will say you can shift 12mm then crop into a 150MP file for the same effect. Sure you can, but I won’t be paying extra for that privilege.

The metadata and modern shutter would be nice, but they are secondary to the primary function of the tech cam (movements) for me.

Others will have different priorities!

 

[dougpeterson]

We've sold more XT kits than all-other-tech-cameras-combined since the XT launch, by a solid margin.

Frequently they had previously looked at tech cameras but found previous options too slow or cumbersome to use.

By definition those who already owned a tech camera didn't find the speed/ease/simplicity of previous tech cameras to be a problem, so it's unsurprising the XT has less appeal to them. Though the X-Shutter may.

 

[RLB]

I've used an Arca RM3 and Factum with Phase back for the past 7 years. Rode 32, 40, 70, 90 and SK 120 ASP. Original Phase back IQ180, now IQ4150

I've also spent some time on location with the XT. These cameras are comparable in size and weight and functionality to each other as well as the offerings of Alpa and Cambo.

The XT adds recorded shifts, the modern CF leaf shutter, and a hard shutter button release. How important are these? Only you can answer that question. If I were just getting into a Tech camera system I might be inclined to start with the XT. Being heavily invested in Arca gear that is modular beyond my R camera, the range of lenses I have that are not even available for the XT and in consideration of the cost to upgrade to the XT (substantial) I'm happy with where I am. YMMV

Robert B

 

[Paul Spinnler]

We've sold more XT kits than all-other-tech-cameras-combined since the XT launch, by a solid margin.

Frequently they had previously looked at tech cameras but found previous options too slow or cumbersome to use.

By definition those who already owned a tech camera didn't find the speed/ease/simplicity of previous tech cameras to be a problem, so it's unsurprising the XT has less appeal to them. Though the X-Shutter may.

Ok, thank you, but what does that mean actually? 30 XTs sold va 4 Alpas and 2 Cambos vs a population of 300 Alpas, 150 Cambos? How many existing users actually convert? Clearly a new product sells well, but to really upend the market XT would need to convert?

Many thanks
Paul

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I've used an Arca RM3 and Factum with Phase back for the past 7 years. Rode 32, 40, 70, 90 and SK 120 ASP. Original Phase back IQ180, now IQ4150

I've also spent some time on location with the XT. These cameras are comparable in size and weight and functionality to each other as well as the offerings of Alpa and Cambo.

The XT adds recorded shifts, the modern CF leaf shutter, and a hard shutter button release. How important are these? Only you can answer that question. If I were just getting into a Tech camera system I might be inclined to start with the XT. Being heavily invested in Arca gear that is modular beyond my R camera, the range of lenses I have that are not even available for the XT and in consideration of the cost to upgrade to the XT (substantial) I'm happy with where I am. YMMV

Robert B

My theory is that the vast majority of tech cam users think that way. The lack of shift and bad interoperability between existing systems make it less appealing than it could be. Imagine an XT one could get with any mount. Like an Alpa XT or an Arca XT ...

 

[dougpeterson]

Clearly a new product sells well, but to really upend the market XT would need to convert?

The idea is not to sell an XT to every person that bought another tech camera in the past; that's a very small market; that will happen in some cases (a minority of our XT purchasers have migrated from other platforms), but it's not the primary aim.

The idea is to sell XT to the (much much much larger) market of people who like quality, want movements, and never remotely considered traditional tech cameras.

And it seems to be working.

 

[RLB]

Frequently they had previously looked at tech cameras but found previous options too slow or cumbersome to use.

X-Shutter may.

By their very nature and design, all Tech and view cameras are inherently "slow" and "cumbersome", the XT included. This type of camera's specific capabilities (shifting, lens options, etc.) define why its the right tool for certain types of shooting and not for others.

In a direct comparison between a "conventional" Tech camera (Factum or RM3di) and the XT, my working time and effort to achieve the same shot was really not much different.
One still needs to use a tripod, focus, compose, shift, etc. If you want to work faster I suggest another tool: XF.


Robert B

 

[Paul Spinnler]

The idea is not to sell an XT to every person that bought another tech camera in the past; that's a very small market; that will happen in some cases (a minority of our XT purchasers have migrated from other platforms), but it's not the primary aim.

The idea is to sell XT to the (much much much larger) market of people who like quality, want movements, and never remotely considered traditional tech cameras.

And it seems to be working.

Interesting - a German dealer I know says it does not work at all. Guess the US market is different ... and I must concur with Robert on the XT vs. other manufacturer setup usability. I think it is just marketing to say it is easier as you still need a tripod at 5.6, iso 100 and normal light and using a back with say an STC is not rocket science. Turn back on, press live view, finger press shutter circle icon on back. Also using an Alpa Max is not rocket science.

The ease of use is one of the key marketing messages devised by sales at launch. I loved the compactness of the body and the integrated rotation, but just found the shift of 12mm unfortunate. Interested to see where the system goes ...

And the initial reason for asking the question of this thread is that there are not many known users of the system here in the forum ...? At least a lot less reviews / impressions, etc. than one could expect for a P1 product launch.

 

[dougpeterson]

In a direct comparison between a "conventional" Tech camera (Factum or RM3di) and the XT, my working time and effort to achieve the same shot was really not much different.

I think this speaks more to your capabilities and technical proficiency as an Arca user. I agree that for me the difference is rather modest. But having demo'd the Arca R series (my personal favorite traditional tech cam, and the one with the most technical prowess and precision in my opinion) to hundreds of photographers, I can tell you that 9 out of 10 professionals or serious hobbyists find the Arca undesirably complex in both physical and digital workflow. In contrast, most of the people I show the XT to "get it" pretty darn quick.

One still needs to use a tripod, focus, compose, shift, etc. If you want to work faster I suggest another tool: XF.

I think this comment again reflects the differing ways you might view the XT if you already own and love a traditional tech camera vs the way you might view an XT if you've never even heard of "tech cameras". That's totally fair and valid.

Indeed many of our XT purchasers are shooting hand held at least a meaningful amount of the time (some, exclusively). I know one who exclusively uses hyperfocal and rarely shifts. He just wanted something with the image quality of an IQ4 XF 45LS BR, but in a smaller and lighter package that still handled like a "normal camera" (his words) and autofocus was not important to his use case.

From here.

I'm not here to convince you or anyone else that an XT is right for you; in fact my posts quite clearly indicate that for most people who already own a tech camera it's likely not (though the X-Shutter might be). I'm only trying to explain that it's a different kind of shooter who is buying the XT – one for whom traditional tech cameras were not a good fit. So if a traditional tech camera is a good fit for you, it will be hard to see things through those eyes.

 

[dougpeterson]

Interesting - a German dealer I know says it does not work at all. Guess the US market is different ...

I suspect there is enormous variation by country/region and by dealer. I can only speak for the USA where DT is the largest dealer.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Interesting - a German dealer I know says it does not work at all. Guess the US market is different ... and I must concur with Robert on the XT vs. other manufacturer setup usability. I think it is just marketing to say it is easier as you still need a tripod at 5.6, iso 100 and normal light and using a back with say an STC is not rocket science. Turn back on, press live view, finger press shutter circle icon on back. Also using an Alpa Max is not rocket science.

The ease of use is one of the key marketing messages devised by sales at launch. I loved the compactness of the body and the integrated rotation, but just found the shift of 12mm unfortunate. Interested to see where the system goes ...

And the initial reason for asking the question of this thread is that there are not many known users of the system here in the forum ...? At least a lot less reviews / impressions, etc. than one could expect for a P1 product launch.

Hi Paul - not sure what that German dealer meant by "does not work at all". But in the USA, there are numerous dealers, and each dealer has a unique perspective. We don't speak for everyone, nor does any one dealer speak for us.

But I will say that, yes, the XT camera has sold well, and while Cambo/Alpa/Arca sales have remained steady, the XT is the new kid on the block, and it has inspired buyers in greater numbers, as a result.

Regarding the usability question - I actually find it is not so much the time that you add up, it is the diversion of focus, that is the problem for me (compared to using a copal shutter lens or even an aperture mount lens). I hate the idea of having to be pay attention to the front of the camera, as well as the back of the camera (for changing shutter speeds, aperture, etc.). I find it distracting and diverting from what I am focusing on in front of the lens, and the XT with X shutter relieves me of that.

Which gets back to one of my original points, which is that the X Shutter itself is the really big development. This shutter will make its way to other tech camera manufacturers, like Alpa/Arca/Cambo. What the XT camera itself really brings is integration, meaning the ability to take advantage of the X shutter without cabling. And add to that the small size (it is the smallest modern XY shift camera in existence). For some, this trumps the extra shift capability of a traditional tech camera. A quote from one of my XT clients:

"As a whole I love the system. Perfectly placed in between a pure tech camera and XF for me."


If you need more shift and size/weight is not as much a concern, then you have the option of using the X Shutter with an existing tech camera system at some point, presumably later this year.

The price of the system itself is not outrageous compared to offerings from Alpa/Cambo, for instance. The lenses cost a bit more, but that cost accounts for the X Shutter. And some more than less - the 32HR is only about $1,500 higher an aperture mounted Cambo lens. To me, that's a comparative bargain. Yes, I would pay $1,500 more for a 32HR with an X shutter. Every day. The 70HR has a bigger gap - it is about $3,500 more - but again, the cost of the X Shutter has to be taken into account. There are more expensive XY shift bodies on the market than the XT, so ... I think the entire tech camera category is a relatively expensive category, and yes, the XT system is nearer the top of that than the bottom.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Hi Paul - not sure what that German dealer meant by "does not work at all". But in the USA, there are numerous dealers, and each dealer has a unique perspective. We don't speak for everyone, nor does any one dealer speak for us.

But I will say that, yes, the XT camera has sold well, and while Cambo/Alpa/Arca sales have remained steady, the XT is the new kid on the block, and it has inspired buyers in greater numbers, as a result.

Regarding the usability question - I actually find it is not so much the time that you add up, it is the diversion of focus, that is the problem for me (compared to using a copal shutter lens or even an aperture mount lens). I hate the idea of having to be pay attention to the front of the camera, as well as the back of the camera (for changing shutter speeds, aperture, etc.). I find it distracting and diverting from what I am focusing on in front of the lens, and the XT with X shutter relieves me of that.

Which gets back to one of my original points, which is that the X Shutter itself is the really big development. This shutter will make its way to other tech camera manufacturers, like Alpa/Arca/Cambo. What the XT camera itself really brings is integration, meaning the ability to take advantage of the X shutter without cabling. And add to that the small size (it is the smallest modern XY shift camera in existence). For some, this trumps the extra shift capability of a traditional tech camera. A quote from one of my XT clients:

"As a whole I love the system. Perfectly placed in between a pure tech camera and XF for me."


If you need more shift and size/weight is not as much a concern, then you have the option of using the X Shutter with an existing tech camera system at some point, presumably later this year.

The price of the system itself is not outrageous compared to offerings from Alpa/Cambo, for instance. The lenses cost a bit more, but that cost accounts for the X Shutter. And some more than less - the 32HR is only about $1,500 higher an aperture mounted Cambo lens. To me, that's a comparative bargain. Yes, I would pay $1,500 more for a 32HR with an X shutter. Every day. The 70HR has a bigger gap - it is about $3,500 more - but again, the cost of the X Shutter has to be taken into account. There are more expensive XY shift bodies on the market than the XT, so ... I think the entire tech camera category is a relatively expensive category, and yes, the XT system is nearer the top of that than the bottom.


Steve Hendrix/CI

The meaning of the statement was more like it does not sell too well. I think it has also to do with the fact that he caters more to working pros than enthusiasts and maybe the crisis plays a role as well. I like the body, it is just that I would love to be able to use the XT lenses on an Alpa body and not only on an XT body. It is a shame to own a 90mm XT and say not be able to use one's ALPA Plus. Sure, you can use a Cambo, but then you have like three systems etc. I would just appreciate some more communication from P1 on whether there will be an XT XL and how exactly the interoperability will work - eg shutter release available somehow still once the IQ4 is connected via cable to an XT lens, etc.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

So if a traditional tech camera is a good fit for you, it will be hard to see things through those eyes.

Yes, you are right here probably. I then don't get why P1 doesn't go full on and announces an XT XL with tilt and shift 20+. I'd immediately switch to P1 ...! Just saying a 90mm XT for just 12mm shift is really sad!

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Also wonder why there aren't too many user experience posts on the XT ...

 

[Mexecutioner]

Also wonder why there aren't too many user experience posts on the XT ...

Maybe they are spending their time using it instead of writing about it here.

I know a lot of people that make tons of images and never spend time in fora. Who knows?

 

[RLB]

As has been suggested, those who have used view and tech cameras for years and are extremely comfortable and already well vested in the lenses they want and need are far less likely the target market compared to someone who is seeing a tech camera for the first time and has no comparable system at all.

The XT offers some advantages and some disadvantages over other tech cameras, all of which have been mentioned in this thread. For the heavily vested user like myself, the cost to switch sysems and limited lens offering far outweighs the benefits recorded shifts, shutter release on body and the X-shutter. Down the road who knows?

Robert B

 

[RogerM]

As many of you have pointed out there really is no reason to switch from your current tech set up to the XT. I gave up my entire tech cam kit a few years ago because the new IQ3 didn’t work very well with my wide lenses and I switched to using the 35mm PC lenses for all of my commercial location work. I still used the Phase in the studio and upgraded to the IQ4 which is a completely different animal compared to the IQ3. With landscape photography the 35mm cameras (D850 and r7 iv) never really did it for me and I would break my back dragging around the Phase XF camera and lenses because the IQ4 image quality is just so much better.

I missed using my tech cam and wanted to get more use out of the IQ4. Along comes the XT that I could fit in a small backpack. No LCC worries, integrated shutter, frame averaging, and less of a need for the ND filter kit. Yes, sometimes I could use a little more shift and I’m still waiting on Capture Pilot. Aside from a few quirks I love using the XT. I’m shooting more landscape photography than I have in the past because it’s so easy.

Roger Mastroianni

 

[Gerd]

I am German and currently also live here. That the XT did not sell well in Germany is due to the fact that only KIT's were for sale here.

But for me as the owner of various Cambo's, an IQ4150 and IQ4150 Achromat, this is absolutely uninteresting. Furthermore, there is still no cable which a new XT lens e.g. can control on a Cambo via IQ4 and I can not be 100% sure that this cable will even exist.

So it makes no sense to me at the moment to invest in an XT system and I don't find it surprising that the XT should sell badly here in Germany.

For me personally, I see the actual profit in the new shutter.

Greetings Gerd

 

[dougpeterson]

I am German and currently also live here. That the XT did not sell well in Germany is due to the fact that only KIT's were for sale here.

That's an interesting note about the sales channel there; as I said, I expect variation by the region and by the dealer. For clarity, we (DT) are glad to sell any bit or piece separately.

Furthermore, there is still no cable which a new XT lens e.g. can control on a Cambo via IQ4 and I can not be 100% sure that this cable will even exist.

It's not just "a cable" but also the making of the firmware to allow that external control (and the testing thereof).

I guess in a philosophical sense one can't be 100% sure of anything. However, P1 has publicly committed to making that option available, is actively working on it at the moment, and has every sales and marketing incentive to do so; from a realpolitik point of view the most valuable thing is not selling XT bodies so much as selling IQ4 backs, and any tech camera owner using an X-Shutter by definition must already own or must buy an IQ4.

So, yes, that cable (and the firmware/testing that make the cable work) will come.

So it makes no sense to me at the moment to invest in an XT system... For me personally, I see the actual profit in the new shutter.

That sounds right. Looking forward to what you think/decide when the X-Shutter-on-other-tech-cameras becomes an option. Last it was publicly discussed P1 was on schedule "summer 2020" – but I have not asked about this since COVID, and wouldn't be surprised if this situation delays that somewhat.