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!

DTcommercialphoto.com article: "10 resons to choose MF"

pegelli

Well-known member
No arguements here, it's just that current "Phase and Phase-interested customers" are such a small group that IMHO the article makes very little impact on the market Fuji is going for.
I got the email, don't know how I got on their email list. I don't live in the US and I don't consider myself a "Phase or Phase-interested customer". Maybe because I am a C1 user?

But I'm not in the market for a Fuji either.
 

algrove

Well-known member
I got the email, don't know how I got on their email list. I don't live in the US and I don't consider myself a "Phase or Phase-interested customer". Maybe because I am a C1 user?

But I'm not in the market for a Fuji either.
If you are not a DT customer, but use C1 then as druken suggested it might have been a Phase sponsored email. Otherwise how could DT know that you were a C1 user?
 
Last edited:

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
If you are not a DT customer, but use C1 then as druken suggested it might have been a Phase sponsored email.
I will only say that we - Capture Integration - have not been approached by Phase One to publish any sort of Fuji rebuttal. We sell both Phase One and Fuji GFX, so you would think that Phase One would be particularly keen on having us make some sort of statement. But we had no such request.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

pegelli

Well-known member
First response by DT (in another thread), I'm glad the article will will be corrected ;)

- Perspective is solely determined by camera-to-subject distance. This is commonly misunderstood – enough so that it slipped by in a recent post my team made; I'll have that corrected.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but it sort of seems like P1 and Hasselblad have already seen the writing on the wall and have been acting accordingly. The DF system seems like the least of what they do, and the H system though very mature I rarely see an ad for. Phase One seems *to me* to be shifting toward institutional needs, technical photography, and Capture One licensing. I mean can they really expect to keep selling $50k digital backs when even Nikon DSLRs fulfill the needs of 99% of studio applications with greater ease and fractional cost? At least from where I'm sitting digital imaging has long since reached a point where the upgrades are no longer critical. Up until this year I was still doing limited pro work with a D700. I have not found the need to upgrade from my D810, and I was shooting a job this weekend with an old AFi-II 7. All of these cameras produced beautiful images within their limitations. I look forward to upgrading to 2012 technology when I can afford a Credo back.

If you were building a product studio and you could buy 2 GFX100s and every lens Fuji makes for the price of one IQ4 back...from where does the IQ4 justification come? The way I see it they either pivot to luxury where cost is the point, or away from professional photography where cost is nearly always an issue. That being said, i've been wrong about Phase for a while. I have said forever they need a $10k solution and they've never done it, and they seem to be doing ok. So what do I know? The last time I knew a lot about studio photography was when the P45+ was a hot item, and I thought it was exactly what my 500cm needs. :ROTFL:

ALSO I should point out that I know an editorial photographer who shoots P1, and says he made his money back renting it out and using it in less than a year. Jake Stangel is his name and he has a great Instagram presence. He prefers a WLF, end of story.

Also I never thought I'd still be 90% film in 2019. But that's probably because I didn't follow my peers into shooting Target sunday circular stuff. :D
 

pegelli

Well-known member
First response by DT (in another thread), I'm glad the article will will be corrected ;)

They didn't drop down to 9 reasons but made up a new one:

DTcommercialphoto said:
4) A New Perspective

The big, bright optical viewfinder is a drastically different visual experience for the user as compared to the small constrained viewfinder of a small-format camera or the computer-screen-like EVF of a mirrorless camera. Once you’re used to composing within a spacious and visceral viewfinder it’s hard to live with anything less.
Apparently they now want to restart the flame war betwen OVF and EVF supporters :ROTFL:

Let me just say that I'm not convinced this is a valid argument and leave it at that :toocool:
 

vieri

Well-known member
...

Not least, Phase One has done a great job with starting invention in medium format and staying on top. Think about losing the Hasselblad and the Contax 645 platforms and buying Mamiya to build a new MFD system.

Best regards
Erik
...

Apparently they now want to restart the flame war betwen OVF and EVF supporters :ROTFL:

Let me just say that I'm not convinced this is a valid argument and leave it at that :toocool:
Just adding two .02 for a .04 total :)

1. PhaseOne did a great job in MF, I have been using their backs and cameras back in the day (P45+, P65+), but IMHO everything they did was just evolutionary, never conceptually revolutionary or innovative. Conceptually, all they did was taking the old MF camera concept and replacing film with a sensor. Everything else remained the same, and still is the same now. Hasselblad did the exact same thing with their H line. Also IMHO, Phase did so with better results than Hassy, but conceptually I don't see any invention or innovation with neither of them there - just repeating the old MF film concept concept and improving as technology improved, that's it.

On the other hand, Hasselblad with the X1D and Fuji with the GFX applied some invention and innovation to the MF concept. Again, results are a different business - I am talking concept and innovation here - and arguably conceptually the X1D was a game changer as far as applying the advantages of digital to MF and making into a truly small, light and portable MF system, the Fuji got close but slightly less so: system is still bulky, all the GFX cameras have lots of bits and pieces, I'd say that GFX cameras never went "all-in" and are in-between-old-MF-and-X1D-modular-contraptions, etc.

2. EFV vs OVF, IMHO, depends only on your application. As I wrote in my X1D review, and in many articles before that (i.e. SL review) I believe that for landscape photography the EVF is THE most important change since the advent of digital, with so many advantages over a OVF that it's not even funny. Of course, other applications will end up in a completely different evaluation of the benefits of the one vs the other, but arguing that an OVF, as good as it might be, is "A new perspective" is probably a worse fix than the original.

Best regards,

Vieri
 

Fredrick

Active member
Just adding two .02 for a .04 total :)

1. PhaseOne did a great job in MF, I have been using their backs and cameras back in the day (P45+, P65+), but IMHO everything they did was just evolutionary, never conceptually revolutionary or innovative. Conceptually, all they did was taking the old MF camera concept and replacing film with a sensor. Everything else remained the same, and still is the same now. Hasselblad did the exact same thing with their H line. Also IMHO, Phase did so with better results than Hassy, but conceptually I don't see any invention or innovation with neither of them there - just repeating the old MF film concept concept and improving as technology improved, that's it.

On the other hand, Hasselblad with the X1D and Fuji with the GFX applied some invention and innovation to the MF concept. Again, results are a different business - I am talking concept and innovation here - and arguably conceptually the X1D was a game changer as far as applying the advantages of digital to MF and making into a truly small, light and portable MF system, the Fuji got close but slightly less so: system is still bulky, all the GFX cameras have lots of bits and pieces, I'd say that GFX cameras never went "all-in" and are in-between-old-MF-and-X1D-modular-contraptions, etc.

2. EFV vs OVF, IMHO, depends only on your application. As I wrote in my X1D review, and in many articles before that (i.e. SL review) I believe that for landscape photography the EVF is THE most important change since the advent of digital, with so many advantages over a OVF that it's not even funny. Of course, other applications will end up in a completely different evaluation of the benefits of the one vs the other, but arguing that an OVF, as good as it might be, is "A new perspective" is probably a worse fix than the original.

Best regards,

Vieri
I'll chime inn here with my two uninformed cents.

I have used every format from APS-C to 8x10 in my 12 years of photography. The whole EVF vs OFV argument remains quite silly to me, on this we agree. If you want to take advantage of a bigger OFV you'll need a lope, it's that simple. With an EVF that is integrated.

The other thing which Fuji and Hasselblad has a strong advantage with is the price. How much do you have to pay for a 100mpx P1 back without the camera? (Too much for me to even consider it). Now with the release of the Fuji GFX 100, it seems entirely more possible that I will be moving into MF territory.
 
Top