Phase One XT: The First Modern Field Camera (and X-Shutter and new firmware)

[dougpeterson]

thats the canon 24mm t/s

Thanks. I've posted both (23mm and 24TSE) on this thread, but mislabeled one of them. I've now corrected that but it will still be wrong in some of the quoted text.

 

[Boinger]

Am I to understand that the following features:

Bracketing via ES in Digital Back (Phase One XT only)

Time Lapse via ES in Digital Back (Phase One XT Only)

Are only going to be available on a tech cam if you buy a XT. Instead of just simply being available for all tech cam users?

If so that is pretty effing ridiculous.

 

[dougpeterson]

Am I to understand that the following features:

Bracketing via ES in Digital Back (Phase One XT only)

Time Lapse via ES in Digital Back (Phase One XT Only)

Are only going to be available on a tech cam if you buy a XT. Instead of just simply being available for all tech cam users?

If so that is pretty effing ridiculous.

Only for the moment. Implementation on other tech cameras requires slightly different UI and behind the scenes code. So for this firmware release it was only developed/tested for the XT use case. But you'll see it developed/tested/released for other tech cameras in a future firmware update.

 

[f8orbust]

When pricing out Alpa make sure you remember the various components you'll need that the XT includes natively. For example Alpa charges $1290 for an adapter plate which the XT has built-in.

An STC isn't really a fair comparison, but I think it's the closest comparison to make.

- STC Body
- Adapter Plate
- Sync Adapter
- HPF
- Dovetail
- Hand Grip
- 32HR in eShutter
- Silex (II) Controller

OR

- STC Body
- Adapter Plate
- Sync Adapter
- HPF
- Dovetail
- Hand Grip
- 32HR in Aperture Only

I think you'll find the XT is less expensive than either of these options, while being lighter and providing a significantly easier and more integrated workflow.

Don't you have to add like $40k for an IQ4 since it won't work with any other back. The Alpa on the other hand...

 

[dougpeterson]

Don't you have to add like $40k for an IQ4 since it won't work with any other back. The Alpa on the other hand...

With an IQ3 (or earlier) an XT body works the same as the Alpa; a dumb plate of metal.

The IQ4 is required for all the new integration features as well as to power/control the X-Shutter. So I suspect the overwhelming majority of XT owners will also be IQ4 owners (whether buying from scratch or upgrading from an IQ1/2/3).

But you could use an XT body with an IQ3 and a Cambo mount Rodenstock lens (copal, aperture only, or eShutter) in the same way you could use those lenses on an Alpa. And it would retain its unique combination of small size, light weight, and 12mm movement in all directions

 

[Massive Si]

Something that nobody else seems to be touching on is the limitation of this to the IQ4 series - It's pretty disappointing to me at least. The explanation that the new 12 pin socket is critical for shutter power makes some sense, but seems like a trivial barrier to overcome with either some kind of adapter cable with a battery connection, or to the HDMI port (5V 50ma of power per HDMI spec, no clue if that's enough). You could even get somewhat fancy and have a capacitor slowly charge up from the HDMI power to provide enough instantaneous current.

Sure it's not as elegant, but the most elegant thing would have been to have the lens connect to the body anyway and have the body pull power from the back for the shutter anyway.

Really awesome offering for the few with an IQ4

I mentioned it above

and what it tells me, is that I cannot trust Phase One to honour my investment in their ecosystem for very long

I know there will be people on here who will say "there is always negativity" following announcements. But as an IQ3 user, what incentive is there for me to invest further in the product knowing that P1 will drop older back from development after a few years?
Look how long Apple support their premium systems (from iphone to macbookpro)

I dont want to turn this into a bashing P1 thread. as I said, locking to IQ4 only is disappointing but it has given me clarity on future purchasing

 

[dougpeterson]

I mentioned it above

and what it tells me, is that I cannot trust Phase One to honour my investment in their ecosystem for very long

I know there will be people on here who will say "there is always negativity" following announcements. But as an IQ3 user, what incentive is there for me to invest further in the product knowing that P1 will drop older back from development after a few years?
Look how long Apple support their premium systems (from iphone to macbookpro)

I dont want to turn this into a bashing P1 thread. as I said, locking to IQ4 only is disappointing but it has given me clarity on future purchasing

The IQ3 series had some meaningful feature and UI upgrades compared to the IQ2 and IQ1, and of course featured a far more powerful sensor.

However the IQ3 internal guts (sensor aside) were largely the same as the IQ1 which was released in 2011, 8 years ago. The positive part of that is that the IQ3 100mp was born 99% finished as most of the features were already built (in previous generations) and only a new sensor and a few tweaks were needed.

The IQ4 is a ground up complete redesign. No shared hardware (other than the external chassis). New OS. New UI. New everything. The positive part is that far more is possible with the IQ4 platform than the IQ3 and everything is just faster and you're very unlikely to get left behind by any new hardware in the next several years. Eventually of course there will be some new thing that the IQ4 is not compatible with, but it will be quite a while in the future. The bad part of that is that they had to remake any feature/capability of the IQ3 that they wanted to have on the IQ4, from more-or-less scratch. As a result the IQ4 was born with many features missing from the IQ3 and it's taken them a year to catch up (and they're still missing Ad Hoc wireless, though that's because they are swinging for the fences on a bigger/better wireless/mobile solution).

One of the worst choices Phase One ever made was to call the IQ4 the IQ4 rather than, whatever, the ZZ1. It was just as big, maybe bigger, than the change from the P+ to IQ.

Anyway the point is that eventually technology moves on. Phase One has a pretty stellar track record of making things forward/backward compatible compared to just about any camera company I can think of (other than Arca Swiss, but that's all pure-mechanical stuff). You just happen to have a back that was at the end of one big technology arc rather than the start of a big technology arc. Express your frustration to your dealer, and see what kind of great deal they can offer you to upgrade your IQ3 to an IQ4 with (or without) an XT. I think you'll really be impressed with this back. Frame averaging alone (for those who can use it in their style of work) is worth the upgrade.

 

[JeRuFo]

Thanks for the extra website. Took a quick peek at the Phase website at work today but couldn't find any info on the camera besides how great and portable it is. Are they getting their PR training from Leica, where if you want to know you have to go to a dealer or find the information in someone's review.

 

[Alan]

Today: The XT encodes the movement in metadata and C1 suggests the closest matching LCC from your library of presets.

Is this auto-LCC-suggestion feature documented somewhere?

I didn't notice anything with a quick search in C1 help. Does it work with manually entered shift info? Best practices for cataloging LCC presets per lens/shift would be helpful for taking advantage of this.

 

[Don Libby]

Writing this will win me no friends and in all likelihood lose a few.

First, I'm pleased that someone decided to stop calling this a mirrorless system and instead by it rightful name of "...Modern Field Camera...). Truth be told all technical cameras are by design mirrorless.

For me there are several negatives...

1. You must have the IQ4 150 or you can't use it.
2. No autofocus (not a huge deal as there hasn't been offered in a technical camera to date)
3. No long lens that I can see
4. Cost

I see a comparison made showing the XT with 23mm and a GFX 100 with Canon TS-E24mm. Big difference and points to the XT. On the surface I can see what the comparison was made as it compared like systems in regards to movements. However that comparison breaks down rather fast.

Cost Factor: (amounts rounded up to nearest $100)

GFX 100 $10,000
Canon TS-E 24mm $1,900
Canon/Fuji adaptor $400

Total cost $12,300

XT Body $6,000
XT23HR $12,000
IQ4 150 $52,000

Total cost $70,000

I then look at a couple of trips planed.

We'll be spending close the 45 days this year in Jackson Hole Wy which should set us back around $8,500

We're in the planning stages of visiting Japan to shoot snow monkeys and landscape which should be around $10,000

I see this as a one-trick pony. The XT will be great for landscape photography however I'll still need to carry another system if I wanted to shoot anything else or if/when I need AF.

I don't have a GFX100 and not entirely certain when I'll get one as I happen to like the current GFX50. This system allows me to choose to shoot macro, nature, wildlife and landscape in one system not to mention deep space and the milky way.

I never had that flexibility when I used my Phase One system and technical systems. I might still look at the Cambo Actus.

I'll take a hard pass on this.

 

[Boinger]

Only for the moment. Implementation on other tech cameras requires slightly different UI and behind the scenes code. So for this firmware release it was only developed/tested for the XT use case. But you'll see it developed/tested/released for other tech cameras in a future firmware update.

Honestly I doubt it would have taken much extra to turn it on for tech cam use. It seems odd that they could develop this for the XT but not for tech cam which would be exponentially simpler.

I have my doubts it will come to our tech cams especially at the rate at which the firmware's are being released / Still missing functionality.

 

[dougpeterson]

Honestly I doubt it would have taken much extra to turn it on for tech cam use. It seems odd that they could develop this for the XT but not for tech cam which would be exponentially simpler.

I have my doubts it will come to our tech cams especially at the rate at which the firmware's are being released / Still missing functionality.

Nope, won't take much extra. But current implementation uses the X-Shutter (making it compatible with bracketing in a flash-fill situation), and when you're looking to close out development so you can launch a product every extra variable is another thing to develop and test.

You're welcome to your doubts, but I'm telling you it's coming for ES use (on any camera). And you'll be hard pressed to find examples of things I said would come and did not (though, to be fair, several examples where it took longer than expected).

 

[dougpeterson]

Writing this will win me no friends and in all likelihood lose a few.

First, I'm pleased that someone decided to stop calling this a mirrorless system and instead by it rightful name of "...Modern Field Camera...).

[...]

I see this as a one-trick pony. The XT will be great for landscape photography however I'll still need to carry another system if I wanted to shoot anything else or if/when I need AF.

I think you see it clearly. It sounds like it may not fit your needs and wants, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The XT is unapologetically focused on landscape/architectural photography with an emphasis on keeping size/weight down without any sacrifice on image quality.

If you need a Swiss Army Knife (e.g. AF for shooting monkeys; video; several fps burst mode etc), this ain't it.

On the other hand, it's the exact right tool if you have the budget and your main or sole focus is landscape and you're looking for something that has the absolute best image quality, but in a package that is smaller, lighter, and easier to use than any other tech camera with similar movements.

 

[stngoldberg]

As all who read this site know this XT discussion is taking place on two threads-one with Doug and one with Steve.
Both threads contain similar information and varied comments, but one issue that has been left unaddressed is the lack of Tilt which happens to be one the major reasons that I use a technical camera.
There are so many occasions when focus stacking just will not fill the bill especially outdoors in all but the most calm condition that are exempt from moving water.
Focus stacking will be useful in indoor architectural photography and this area seems to be ideal use for the XT, but the folks that make a living in architectural photography have to determine if the convenience merits the considerable cost.
For me when I carry my Arca Swiss on a strap secured to my shoulder by my quite small backpack overlapping it, I would probably transport the DT the same way
While the advertisement headlined no cables, it only takes less than a minute to attach cables to my IQ3 100.
It is still necessary to measure the distance with my Leica laser on both setups
Even with the new BSI technology, I would most likely use on LCC when shifting...again only a few seconds!
So I struggle with the new concept introduced today from a convenience perspective and without Tilt (which I use on every image) I would have difficulty
investing.
Stanley

 

[Christopher]

Now that I had some time to think about everything here are my thoughts:

It is a sexy camera and I wouldn't mind owing one. I probably would even be much closer on ordering one if I weren't invested in Arca Swiss and the Phase one options and prices would be so extreme. I love that shifts are recorded and I think it makes LCC much nicer. However, I really would have wished for more Shift. At least 15mm. Size couldn't be the reason. The WRS 1200 is 16x16 and offers a LOT more shifting options. If I actually switched systems I already know that I would miss the tilt option. I find it sad it didn't make it into the XT.

Now for me the biggest question is, why do I need to buy the super expensive XT shutter. I know it's great for people using flash, however, for me it's just weight and cost. The ES on the IQ4 is already quite good and I'm pretty sure the next generation will have a global shutter or an ES shutter which readout speed is much faster.

Just an over view:

XT:
XT camera - 5.950EUR
23mm - 11.900EUR
32mm - 11.900EUR
70mm - 8.300EUR
-----
Total: 38.050EUR

Arca Swiss:
Rm3di - 5.450EUR
23mm - 7.850EUR
32mm - 8.350EUR
70mm - 3.850EUR
-----
Total: 25.500EUR


So I'm paying 12,5k more for a shutter system which has limited use. And I'm pretty sure the discounts are better with Arca. Now I do get some extra features, but on the other hand I lose stuff like, better focusing, larger shifts and tilt.

All in all I will wait and see if Phase One can deliver its promises. They promise a lot and so far on the firmware side deliver little, or let's say it takes forever. They could have made the thing easy for me, offer a XT - XF adapter with aperture control for the Schneider lenses. I probably would have ordered the body straight away.

 

[Christopher]

I think you see it clearly. It sounds like it may not fit your needs and wants, and there's nothing wrong with that.

The XT is unapologetically focused on landscape/architectural photography with an emphasis on keeping size/weight down without any sacrifice on image quality.

If you need a Swiss Army Knife (e.g. AF for shooting monkeys; video; several fps burst mode etc), this ain't it.

On the other hand, it's the exact right tool if you have the budget and your main or sole focus is landscape and you're looking for something that has the absolute best image quality, but in a package that is smaller, lighter, and easier to use than any other tech camera with similar movements.

Well except I shoot 90% if my landscapes with lenses above 70mm. So for now I could use it only for 10% of my images

 

[dougpeterson]

Now that I had some time to think about everything here are my thoughts:

It is a sexy camera and I wouldn't mind owing one. I probably would even be much closer on ordering one if I weren't invested in Arca Swiss and the Phase one options and prices would be so extreme. I love that shifts are recorded and I think it makes LCC much nicer. However, I really would have wished for more Shift. At least 15mm. Size couldn't be the reason. The WRS 1200 is 16x16 and offers a LOT more shifting options. If I actually switched systems I already know that I would miss the tilt option. I find it sad it didn't make it into the XT.

I think Arca's implementation of tilt is the smartest in the tech/field camera market. We (DT) look forward to continuing to sell more Arca cameras due to the raised profile to these kinds of cameras that we expect Phase One XT to bring to the market place.

The Arca also has very nice integration with a view camera and a very very very precise focus helical.

But, the Arca is also at one extreme end of the complexity spectrum. The learning curve for someone coming from a Canon/Nikon/Sony to learn an Arca R is considerable. The XT will be much faster and easier to learn.

Notably the XT is considerably smaller and lighter than the RM3Di; the Factum is more comparable but only has one direction of movement. That may or may not matter for any given person.

Now for me the biggest question is, why do I need to buy the super expensive XT shutter. I know it's great for people using flash, however, for me it's just weight and cost. The ES on the IQ4 is already quite good and I'm pretty sure the next generation will have a global shutter or an ES shutter which readout speed is much faster.

I would expect the ES on the next generation sensors to be one stop faster, and the next generation to be one stop faster again. This is only informed speculation but I'd say we are still several years away from a truly global shutter or even of ES that is fast enough for general-purpose flash sync.

Just an over view:[bunch of pricing]

Very minor note, but the XT includes the mount for the digital back as an integrated component. For other tech cameras (Arca/Cambo/Alpa) it's a separate component and is, in some cases, more than 1000 USD.

So I'm paying 12,5k more for a shutter system which has limited use.

Included with the X-Shutter:
- Aperture control from back, computer, or (in the future) mobile iOS devices
- Lens metadata (model, aperture)
- Flash sync speeds up to 1/1000 (may or may not have any value to you, depending on if you ever use flash)
- No rolling shutter on moving subject matter

Of course whether those advantages are worth any given cost is a person-to-person decision. I'm just making sure that list of advantages is clear.

They could have made the thing easy for me, offer a XT - XF adapter with aperture control for the Schneider lenses. I probably would have ordered the body straight away.

That will come. Rome wasn't built in a day and the XT platform is just getting started. I'd suggest completing the XT Feedback Form to log your desire for that adapter as your highest priority.

 

[dougpeterson]

Well except I shoot 90% if my landscapes with lenses above 70mm. So for now I could use it only for 10% of my images

If 90% of your landscape work is above 70mm then the XT is definitely not (yet) for you. The addition of LS BR support could certainly change that, especially if there's any room to shift/rise/fall inside some of those lenses long lens image circles (I do NOT know whether there is, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least a couple mm of space).

 

[dougpeterson]

Both threads contain similar information and varied comments, but one issue that has been left unaddressed is the lack of Tilt which happens to be one the major reasons that I use a technical camera.
There are so many occasions when focus stacking just will not fill the bill especially outdoors in all but the most calm condition that are exempt from moving water.
Focus stacking will be useful in indoor architectural photography and this area seems to be ideal use for the XT, but the folks that make a living in architectural photography have to determine if the convenience merits the considerable cost.
For me when I carry my Arca Swiss on a strap secured to my shoulder by my quite small backpack overlapping it, I would probably transport the DT the same way
While the advertisement headlined no cables, it only takes less than a minute to attach cables to my IQ3 100.
It is still necessary to measure the distance with my Leica laser on both setups
Even with the new BSI technology, I would most likely use on LCC when shifting...again only a few seconds!
So I struggle with the new concept introduced today from a convenience perspective and without Tilt (which I use on every image) I would have difficulty
investing.
Stanley

Regarding tilt: I think that's perfectly reasonable. I think (as I said to Christopher above) that Arca has done the best job with tilt. If you need tilt with every lens, they are the only (and excellent) game in town. Hopefully P1 further addresses tilt in the XT ecosystem in the future. If I were them I'd take my inspiration from the Arca R system.

Regarding Convenience: I would encourage you to withhold judgement until/unless you've worked with an XT. The cumulative effect of reducing several moderate hassles is actually pretty significant. I have genuinely enjoyed using the XT in a way that is not fully rationally explainable by the specific amount of steps/inconveniences it removes vs traditional technical cameras.

By the way, in the bold section above I think you meant "XT" not "DT" but I certainly accept your Freudian slip .

 

[Christopher]

Very minor note, but the XT includes the mount for the digital back as an integrated component. For other tech cameras (Arca/Cambo/Alpa) it's a separate component and is, in some cases, more than 1000 USD.

That was included in the price already

One should probably compare the XT more to the rm2d.

At the end you are correct, it depends on what you need.

I would expect the ES on the next generation sensors to be one stop faster, and the next generation to be one stop faster again. This is only informed speculation but I'd say we are still several years away from a truly global shutter or even of ES that is fast enough for general-purpose flash sync.

It all depends on when the next generation comes, as Sony hasn't leaked any new MF sensors my guess is it's 2-3 years away. In that time I'm pretty sure we will see much more than one stop improvement. We will see what Sony can do today with the new A9II.