Phase One News: XF Body, IQ3 backs, 35LS, 120LS, C1 8.3, Website

[Mgreer316]

Hi Steve, I'd love to meet you, Rob, and more of your team one day. You guys have taken care of me and I appreciate it. I probably mistakenly was commenting to you when I really wanted others in this thread to hear. Critical comments should not automatically be assumed to be from complainers, whiners, trolls, haters, etc. There are some really important issues here that need to be understood and aired. I don't expect 10 year old technology to be supported UNLESS prior to my purchase of said technology the point is made about modularity and upgradability. IOW, I'm being sold an expectation as well as a product. Then we hem you take into account the price of the product, unfulfilled expectations can inspire anger. And I don't think that anger is unwarranted. I know wg n I entered this market I had no idea what's the rules were. Meaning, did technology cycles follow the same time lines? Obviously not. But how long were these cycles? With older used product still going for a decent amount I had no idea how long the technology shelf life was for MFD gear. So it's not unreasonable for a P series back owner to believe a new body would be available to them.

Putting that aside, I am still simmering about the cost of the XF. It has NOTHING to do with the XF and EVERYTHING to do with the DF. Again, speaking specifically about the AF performance, it feels like Phase is requiring us to pay for adequate performance of a capability that should be foundational with any $200 AF camera. Let alone a $6k DF.

 

[rhern213]

We'll have to wait and see. IF the AF performance of the XF is predictable and reliable, then I'll have to strongly disagree with you. For ME, the value of the XF is boiled down to the auto focus performance. If the performance is merely in the range of average, then it improves the usefulness of ALL backs currently being shot with the DF. If the usefulness improves, the quality improves because you end up with more usable images.

I agree that's the biggest feature, but hit rate and IQ are two different things. For the price of the XF it'd better be a heck of a lot more than merely average. It would be a big disappointment if it's not at least as good or better than Hasselblads true focus.

But simmering about what you feel is inadequate performance? The engineers that work for Phase know a heck of a lot more than you or I about implementing AF on their body's. You think they spent 5 years in development gathering at a table in meetings and saying to themselves, "Guys I'm tired, forget about making money on the XF, let's just half-*** the AF on this one and make it look really pretty with a huge price tag. So even though nobody will buy it and we'll go broke, at least the few that we sell will be for huge margins!"

In 15 years of R&D from engineers at all the major manufacturers, not a single one of them have developed DSLR like AF performance. I'm willing to bet there's a reason for this, and it's not because they would rather go golfing than work.

Is the price way too high? Yeah probably, but if the product sucks and nobody buys it the market will take care of itself and soon enough we'll see them at auction for a price we like.

 

[Uaiomex]

Hello T.
Actually my post was not about cars which seems you love too but about the fact that nothing is forever and that human beings change their mind on a daily basis.
BTW, I always read your posts with interest.
Eduardo

Hi Eduardo... Enzo did say that once, and even decided to paint all the cars "Maranello red wine" for a couple of years if I remember well back in late 70s or very early 80s.... but again there are some differences with the subject we are discussing here...
1. There is no Enzo with P1... 2. It is a camera offered in one color only... 3. It never had 12 cylinders in tradition... 4. It was never an Alfa Romeo once upon the time.... 5. It comes from a company that made no cameras up until recently... I'm sure you understand the humor behind all this...

 

[6x6]

I think you're being very fair. It's possible that you're being bundled together with other posters.

All you're saying is that if the XF had been built with support for the P+ language that it would have been an easy choice for you to buy it. But since it is not supported your choices are inherently more expensive and therefore you should also look at the competitive options.

This is exactly what I am saying. I'm not unreasonably angry / upset / pi**ed off. I am being objective. I'm saying, having spoken with other photogs using P+ backs, that we have been pushed into a re-evaluation of the system. A re-evaluation that leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm probably not a dealers best friend when it comes to upgrades. I'll only upgrade when I feel that there is something offering a tangible benefit to me. I'm happy with the P40+ sensor. I'm not happy with the DF. It gets in the way. So if a new camera comes out offering real life benefits to me, I would liked to have purchased. It offers a tangible benefit to my working life. A WLF will help during portrait work; the improved focus will give me greater confidence; and it looks like a more robust product. Upgrading to an IQ140 would not. Its the same sensor. I appreciate there is a list of improvements, but having been through them, there is nothing I can't simply live without. It results in the same end product.

I'm being pushed into a back upgrade, when I simply want a camera one.

It is important to feedback these things to Phase One (a company I respect and have used for 10 years).

Thats all. No more, no less.

 

[6x6]

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.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. It is a business decision on Phase's part. I respect that, as they are running a business that I hope remains profitable.

However remember this is the first time in Phase's history (that I can remember) that a deliberate cut off has been implemented. Don't underestimate the depth of feeling in response. The wealthy amateur / larger studio / rental houses will absorb these costs. The photogs with a primary P+ back, a backup P/P+ and 2x camera bodies is now a little stranded.

 

[tjv]

I know some well informed people have said it's not a simple matter to accomidate the P+ backs for use on the XF. To that I ask, well, what on earth is the "open system" rhetoric about then? Surely it's a standard and well proven interface? Heck, they own the patents and you can even use a P+ back on an H4/5X Hasselblad body and it works fine (exepting of course some features Hasselblad save for when using their own backs with an H body). I honestly don't think it's too much to ask that the that generation of legacy back be supported in a basic sense by the new body. There must be a ton of photographers who use P+ backs as backups to IQ backs?

I don't have a horse in this race except that I'm planning on buying into a system later this year. I guess in that regard my opinion isn't overly troubling to anyone involved. Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.

 

[T.Dascalos]

Of course it would be very easy to make a P back work... Even the different language claimed elsewhere isn't a problem... the main control chip could have two or three different communication "languages" built in, that could be user selectable and applied.

Obviously there are two different approaches on this release... One from owners of the IQ & Credo backs that think of it as a platform that could take the most out of their backs and another from people that see a very well designed "black box" that has interchangeable finders some 18 years after Mamiya last offered that option, is very well built and offers all they need and more... but no compatibility with their choices of imaging surface...

It is logical for the later to feel that they are left out on purpose and even feel a bit betrayed... "closed system" practices are not compatible with traditional MF values and the sooner makers will understand that, the better for them... Hasselblad seems to have payed the penalty of their choices the hard way, isn't that a good example for the rest of makers?

 

[jlm]

"traditional MF values" sounds like a contradiction to me; and that awareness should be the first commandment.
fun aside, "traditional MF" used to mean you put your A-12 back only on your 500C, or your Rollei back on your 6008, or you swapped out entire cameras, (rollieflex), etc. there was no such thing as cross platform.

 

[Ken_R]

There is always the ALPA FPS. You can just about use any lens with any back out there.

Hasselblad seems to be doing fine.

P/P+ guys I feel your pain. But I am using a lowly Hasselblad H1 with my IQ160 with great results. So there are great options still out there and there will be for a while.

Keep in mind the XF is new so I wouldn't rule out P/P+ compatibility just yet. But Phase has been known to protect their product line by not supporting other MF products ( like the fact that C1pro does not process 645Z files ) but doing that to their own seems a bit harsh.

There is a small core of forum trolls / frequent posters (mostly on the other forums) that LOVE to bash on Phase and want to see them in the dirt unless Phase does things their way (which is never!). The chief complaint is Price / Cost, next would low light / long. exp. / dynamic range (CCD) and compatibility. All they do is pi$$ off some good people out of the forums and also keep Steve (CI) and Doug (DT) quite busy. It has been going on for years.

 

[T.Dascalos]

"traditional MF values" sounds like a contradiction to me; and that awareness should be the first commandment.
fun aside, "traditional MF" used to mean you put your A-12 back only on your 500C, or your Rollei back on your 6008, or you swapped out entire cameras, (rollieflex), etc. there was no such thing as cross platform.

Hi, "traditional" IMO goes to freedom of choice of the type of imaging area as it was with film and is with competition (H5X)... and even was with now discontinued cameras... (HY-6/600X, m-AFD, Contax, H-V, GX-680... etc.)

 

[Steve Hendrix]

"traditional MF values" sounds like a contradiction to me; and that awareness should be the first commandment.
fun aside, "traditional MF" used to mean you put your A-12 back only on your 500C, or your Rollei back on your 6008, or you swapped out entire cameras, (rollieflex), etc. there was no such thing as cross platform.

Yes that's right. Those were the good ole days. I wonder what was complained about then? And complaining is good, make your voice heard - I only prefer some objectivity and logic in the complaints, even for emotional ones. But it was pretty simple for a camera manufacturer back then, just (very gradually, from what I have historically seen) improve your bodies and add newer better lenses. That's how they made money.

It's not how it works today. That is part of the reason why companies like Bronica, Contax, etc, are no longer are around.

If a MF company can't make the money off the back end, it is a very different and difficult equation today.

I also find it interesting to see how slow the pace of development was for cameras back then. That wasn't a bad thing I suppose, fewer upgrade temptations...


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

 

[Mgreer316]

I agree that's the biggest feature, but hit rate and IQ are two different things. For the price of the XF it'd better be a heck of a lot more than merely average. It would be a big disappointment if it's not at least as good or better than Hasselblads true focus.

We'll of course! What I was trying to highlight is how poor the DF is in this regard. Meaning, a step up to average would be a huge upgrade.

But simmering about what you feel is inadequate performance? The engineers that work for Phase know a heck of a lot more than you or I about implementing AF on their body's. You think they spent 5 years in development gathering at a table in meetings and saying to themselves, "Guys I'm tired, forget about making money on the XF, let's just half-*** the AF on this one and make it look really pretty with a huge price tag. So even though nobody will buy it and we'll go broke, at least the few that we sell will be for huge margins!"

In 15 years of R&D from engineers at all the major manufacturers, not a single one of them have developed DSLR like AF performance. I'm willing to bet there's a reason for this, and it's not because they would rather go golfing than work.

Is the price way too high? Yeah probably, but if the product sucks and nobody buys it the market will take care of itself and soon enough we'll see them at auction for a price we like.

I'm simmering at the cost of obtaining mere adequate AF performance. That's all I want. Not DSLR level. Just adequate. If the DF had mere adequate AF performance, I wouldn't even be considering an XF. Trust me, the bar is low. I'm not desiring any best in class AF performance. I'm currently overshooting because I don't have confidence in the AF performance. I don't want to do that as it is a work flow nightmare. Lightning fast speed is meaningless to me. But accuracy and knowing exactly where the camera is focusing is a basic function of an AF system IMO. The DF doesn't deliver here. Assuming the XF does, I have to invest thousands to get the proper performance of a basic system. That's why I'm simmering. I'm sure I'll enjoy all the XF has to offer. But my bottom line is all I need is a usable AF system.

 

[Jeffery Salter]

I'm simmering at the cost of obtaining mere adequate AF performance. That's all I want. Not DSLR level. Just adequate. If the DF had mere adequate AF performance, I wouldn't even be considering an XF. Trust me, the bar is low. I'm not desiring any best in class AF performance. I'm currently overshooting because I don't have confidence in the AF performance. I don't want to do that as it is a work flow nightmare. Lightning fast speed is meaningless to me. But accuracy and knowing exactly where the camera is focusing is a basic function of an AF system IMO. The DF doesn't deliver here.

@Mgreer316 It would be great to help you achieve better performance with your DF. I would be glad to offer a few workflow suggestions. I am not a catalogue or product photographer. But as a working magazine and editorial photographer with experience using the P40+ back with a DF (over 80K captures) I have been able to successfully complete many assignments. Yes you do have to really keep an eye open for focus issues with the DF. The DF+ is a huge improvement over the DF.

Could you tell the forum a bit more about your workflow. What are you shooting?
Have you adjusted the micro focus on the DF with the lens? What lens seems to be having an issue? Under what conditions are you having focus issues. (Here is a link to an essay I did in Haiti with worshipers at a waterfall I used my P40+ with a DF body. Very few auto focus issues) If you are shooting in a studio and have consistent auto focus issues, it sounds like you are having a technical issue with your body + lens. Have you sent your body or lens in for a tune-up?

Here are five quick suggestions.

1. Set the camera custom function on "Accurate mode"

2. "Double tap" the shutter release before fully releasing the shutter.

3. Beware back light. The DF autofocus goes batsh@t crazy when you try to shoot one of those beautiful flare filled images....

4. If you are shooting tethered, why not use the focus mask in Capture One 8?

5. Carry a small "AA" powered LED flashlight. In low light conditions ask your assistant point it at the subject for a few seconds while you lock in your focus.

There are many knowledgable forum members who could help you. It's great to "rant". But it's a waste of time when all you need to do is ask for help. We are all on the same team.

regards,
Jeffery

 

[jlm]

i hold a sheet of printed text on white paper on the surface of paintings for a focus target; even if using manual focus

 

[T.Dascalos]

i hold a sheet of printed text on white paper on the surface of paintings for a focus target; even if using manual focus

Why "even if using MF"? ...are you using AF to shoot a painting? ...and why use the sheet on the surface of the painting to focus on it?

 

[jlm]

"MF" meaning manual focus; i almost always use manual, but the occasional autofocus has worked.

some paintings do not have sufficient contrast to judge focus, either manually or automatically

 

[Jeffery Salter]

Why "even if using MF"? ...are you using AF to shoot a painting? ...and why use the sheet on the surface of the painting to focus on it?

Auto focus sensors use "contrast" to lock into focus. Here is a very helpful article
from "Cambridge in Colour" which will hopefully help you understand auto-focus.

I'm not a scientist, but I know there are lot on this forum who can explain the whys and hows of it as well.

P.S. I also adjust the diopter on the viewfinders eyepiece. It works wonders. Plus I carry reading glasses +1.50 in my camera bag to review images on the digital back at 100 percent.

 

[Mgreer316]

Jeffrey, I'm ranting on this focus issue because I've done everything reasonable to utilize the DF. Everything you've listed I've done. Not only by myself but with the assistance of Capture Integration. I'm VERY familiar with where the DF will and won't work. Where I absolutely cannot use it is in wide open shallow DoF captures where pinpoint focus accuracy is a necessity. Unfortunately, I shoot a lot if those. Therefore, I grab my 5D3 with 85 1.2L lens for those. I've LOVE to use the Credo and SK 150 2.8 for those, but there's just no way to tell where the camera will grab focus. Plus, I have to focus and recompose those and that slight movement can throw things outta whack.

 

[Jeffery Salter]

Where I absolutely cannot use it is in wide open shallow DoF captures where pinpoint focus accuracy is a necessity. Unfortunately, I shoot a lot if those. Therefore, I grab my 5D3 with 85 1.2L lens for those. I've LOVE to use the Credo and SK 150 2.8 for those, but there's just no way to tell where the camera will grab focus. Plus, I have to focus and recompose those and that slight movement can throw things outta whack.

The SK 150 or Schneider kreuznach 150mm LS is a f 3.5 lens. It's my limited understanding that the equivalent in 35mm would be f 1.7. (in regards to depth of field).

I love this camera geek stuff!!! The minimum focusing distance on the SK 150 is 4.92 ft. The minimum focus on the Canon 85 f 1.2 is 3 ft 1.25 inches.

Love to see some examples of what you are doing.

Could you please link an example photograph?

Focus and recomposing with such shallow depth of field is a challenge no matter which Medium Format camera you use. If you are hand holding the SK 150 the shutter speed needs to be at least twice the focal length of the lens, in this case 1/500 s. I purchased my SK 150 from Capture Integration and even had Doug (in another life) set the fine focus on it.

My apologizes for going off topic.....:facesmack:

 

[rhern213]

Have you tested a DF+?

I had a DF with an Aptus-II 10, and then an IQ180. I just recently switched to the DF+ and there is a noticeable difference in speed and accuracy of the AF. Obviously nothing near DSLR standards, but adequate for my workflow at least.

If you haven't I suggest you demo it with your back.

Jeffrey, I'm ranting on this focus issue because I've done everything reasonable to utilize the DF. Everything you've listed I've done. Not only by myself but with the assistance of Capture Integration. I'm VERY familiar with where the DF will and won't work. Where I absolutely cannot use it is in wide open shallow DoF captures where pinpoint focus accuracy is a necessity. Unfortunately, I shoot a lot if those. Therefore, I grab my 5D3 with 85 1.2L lens for those. I've LOVE to use the Credo and SK 150 2.8 for those, but there's just no way to tell where the camera will grab focus. Plus, I have to focus and recompose those and that slight movement can throw things outta whack.