dougpeterson
Workshop Member
For landscape shooters: not even a tiny bit
For architectural shooters: a LOT
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!
Phase One XT: The First Modern Field Camera (and X-Shutter and new firmware)
- Thread starter dougpeterson
- Start date
For architectural shooters: a LOT
Christopher
Active member
Provably dependents in the market. Even in architecture in Europe I would say not that important. Compared to the US.How important is flash sync speed to the majority of tech cam users I wonder?
Christopher
Active member
Just a short question on warranty. Am I correct that there is no way to get more than a year even if you buy the XT and all lenses? (Over 35k) Upgrade a back to a IQ4 and an XT?
The only way to get 5years is buy the XT lenses and a new back as a bundle, correct?
Another point, if you now buy the XT there will be no chance for extended warranty on any new lenses (40/90..) correct?
The only way to get 5years is buy the XT lenses and a new back as a bundle, correct?
Another point, if you now buy the XT there will be no chance for extended warranty on any new lenses (40/90..) correct?
Thanks Doug, much appreciated!
Some observations w.r.t. an XT design and an integrated focal plane shutter:
- flash sync: 1/125 => I can’t deny this, but how troublesome is this? Think about the huge amount of cameras with a sync speed of 1/125… 1/250. Can’t be that unusable. I’d also like to mention HSS.
- vibration: considerable => I question this. In many cases with DSLRs mirror slap and shutter vibration are mixed up. Here we only have risk of shutter vibration.
- flange distance: uses up several mm => no impact in case of fully integrating it in the camera design.
Last but not least “It’s not that Phase One doesn’t care about cost, but they are a company that prioritizes quality and flexibility much higher than cost.” => Maybe PhaseOne would be better off if they first care about their customers. Many of them possessing very expensive high quality glass containing mechanical shutters. Solving that problem would be a good example of 'flexibility', and not needing to shop elsewhere outside the boundaries of PhaseOne.
Regards,
Jaap.
Some observations w.r.t. an XT design and an integrated focal plane shutter:
- flash sync: 1/125 => I can’t deny this, but how troublesome is this? Think about the huge amount of cameras with a sync speed of 1/125… 1/250. Can’t be that unusable. I’d also like to mention HSS.
- vibration: considerable => I question this. In many cases with DSLRs mirror slap and shutter vibration are mixed up. Here we only have risk of shutter vibration.
- flange distance: uses up several mm => no impact in case of fully integrating it in the camera design.
Last but not least “It’s not that Phase One doesn’t care about cost, but they are a company that prioritizes quality and flexibility much higher than cost.” => Maybe PhaseOne would be better off if they first care about their customers. Many of them possessing very expensive high quality glass containing mechanical shutters. Solving that problem would be a good example of 'flexibility', and not needing to shop elsewhere outside the boundaries of PhaseOne.
Regards,
Jaap.
This is simply not true.While a nice dose of cynicism never hurts, you CAN “just use Cambo lenses” on the XT and adding a focal plane shutter to the XT would have only provided up to 1/125 shutter speed with flash sync and wouldn’t have provided lens model-serial metadata or aperture control and aperture metadata.
It’s the lens that needs to be smart to achieve complete simplicity and integration.
— reposting from LL...
FPS:
- vibration: considerable
- aperture control: manual
.
Why do you continue to misrepresent the FPS? You’ve been doing it for years now.
The simple fact is that if your company sold the FPS, you’d be singing its praises from the rooftops.
Complete and total lack of objectivity.
Still waiting for you to list what was factually incorrect from a previous post you responded to.
It's clear to me, the only winners in this game besides P1 are new customers will to pay 18k for a XT and lens, and Cambo users with lenses in existing Cambo's WRS mount. The current Cambo lenses fit into the XT, albeit no XT shutter features and nothing more than working with a WRS1600, dumb lens, dumb camera. But the cost to switch mounting would be considerably less I assume.
The Alpa, and Arca users, have very little alternatives. No one with a reasonable budget and clear thinking would attempt to own both systems, due to excessive cost. So that leaves only switching mounts. Things to consider.
1. Cost, no prices have been shown, but it's fair to say the cost will be 3K or higher. Personally I feel it's going to be more like 4K. Just based on simple math. Price of new 32 HR-W and Cambo mount with T/S vs Price of XT/32 HR-W at 12K.
2. A lot of moving around and insurance/shipping costs. These lenses are not cheap and they are delicate. Shipping example, for a Arca user: User to dealer, Dealer to P1, P1 to Rodenstock to remove Copal and add X shutter (BTW, never been mentioned if the lens has the Rodenstock aperture only design or if the shutter has aperture control like a copal). Rodenstock back to P1 for testing, P1 back to dealer, dealer back to customer. Lots of shipping, and overseas, customs, insurance, etc.
3. Trade in your existing Arca 32 HR-W with Copal or 23 HR-W with Copal, probably for less than 50% of current list. So best case 4K. So now you are looking at 8K for just a lens lens albeit a lens with more technology built in and with a promising future of enhancements.
Phase could only pick one company, and if I owned a Cambo system, I would be much more prone to consideration of switching, even though loss of tilt for me would be something I would notice on most shots. If Phase One does add support for the Blue ring Schneider's later on, this again would be a big plus, as the 75-150 or 240LS would be excellent considerations. However odds are only the BL Schneider's will work so my 240 LS would be a non player.
Doug's point on the limiting of shift to 12mm, (24 total) is a good one as no current Rodenstock wide, 23, 28, 32 and IMO 40mm can really shift pass 12mm and hold up to the edge. If you need more, then rotate to portrait and shot a pano series. Love the quick ability to rotate to portrait, (but again here tilt becomes for me even more important for Full Field DOF).
PS, I am sure many will say just use focus bracketing. I agree it should work. Only if you have no movement in the subject matter as none of the current tools I have used that combine images from focus bracketing will handle movement.
For me the weakest link of the entire setup is the total dependence on the Live View from the IQ4. From my use the Live View on the IQ4 is much harder to use in the field to obtain 100% sure focus, less contrast or details. The LCD on the IQ4 lacks enough brightness to really work in daylight (sun shades included). And the screen will not tilt off flat, so any low work, or angled work is much harder to see. Options are to move to HDMI output of Live View and then use a 1000 Nit screen, which does work, but again Live on the IQ4 is troubling at best, as Auto for me pulses between too bright and too dark over and over, and the Exposure Simulation can't work in low light without pushing ISO to 2000 to 4000 etc. The current HDMI output can't be manipulated on the external screen, instead you have to move the image around with the blue arrows on the back's LCD, which ties you right back to the LCD. I guess in time Phase will come out with some form of an EVF external but at what cost. The simple solution at least for me is to spend the time to get a Capture Pilot solution out which would allow for a lot more flexibility.
Paul C
The Alpa, and Arca users, have very little alternatives. No one with a reasonable budget and clear thinking would attempt to own both systems, due to excessive cost. So that leaves only switching mounts. Things to consider.
1. Cost, no prices have been shown, but it's fair to say the cost will be 3K or higher. Personally I feel it's going to be more like 4K. Just based on simple math. Price of new 32 HR-W and Cambo mount with T/S vs Price of XT/32 HR-W at 12K.
2. A lot of moving around and insurance/shipping costs. These lenses are not cheap and they are delicate. Shipping example, for a Arca user: User to dealer, Dealer to P1, P1 to Rodenstock to remove Copal and add X shutter (BTW, never been mentioned if the lens has the Rodenstock aperture only design or if the shutter has aperture control like a copal). Rodenstock back to P1 for testing, P1 back to dealer, dealer back to customer. Lots of shipping, and overseas, customs, insurance, etc.
3. Trade in your existing Arca 32 HR-W with Copal or 23 HR-W with Copal, probably for less than 50% of current list. So best case 4K. So now you are looking at 8K for just a lens lens albeit a lens with more technology built in and with a promising future of enhancements.
Phase could only pick one company, and if I owned a Cambo system, I would be much more prone to consideration of switching, even though loss of tilt for me would be something I would notice on most shots. If Phase One does add support for the Blue ring Schneider's later on, this again would be a big plus, as the 75-150 or 240LS would be excellent considerations. However odds are only the BL Schneider's will work so my 240 LS would be a non player.
Doug's point on the limiting of shift to 12mm, (24 total) is a good one as no current Rodenstock wide, 23, 28, 32 and IMO 40mm can really shift pass 12mm and hold up to the edge. If you need more, then rotate to portrait and shot a pano series. Love the quick ability to rotate to portrait, (but again here tilt becomes for me even more important for Full Field DOF).
PS, I am sure many will say just use focus bracketing. I agree it should work. Only if you have no movement in the subject matter as none of the current tools I have used that combine images from focus bracketing will handle movement.
For me the weakest link of the entire setup is the total dependence on the Live View from the IQ4. From my use the Live View on the IQ4 is much harder to use in the field to obtain 100% sure focus, less contrast or details. The LCD on the IQ4 lacks enough brightness to really work in daylight (sun shades included). And the screen will not tilt off flat, so any low work, or angled work is much harder to see. Options are to move to HDMI output of Live View and then use a 1000 Nit screen, which does work, but again Live on the IQ4 is troubling at best, as Auto for me pulses between too bright and too dark over and over, and the Exposure Simulation can't work in low light without pushing ISO to 2000 to 4000 etc. The current HDMI output can't be manipulated on the external screen, instead you have to move the image around with the blue arrows on the back's LCD, which ties you right back to the LCD. I guess in time Phase will come out with some form of an EVF external but at what cost. The simple solution at least for me is to spend the time to get a Capture Pilot solution out which would allow for a lot more flexibility.
Paul C
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
I'd welcome any factual corrections, and would gladly incorporate them into my post to ensure it is accurate. But I suspect you're misreading my post, as I'm very confident in each of these points.This is simply not true.
Note that "FPS" here stands for "Focal Plane Shutter" generically rather than for the "Alpa FPS" which I only addressed in one point on my post (about weight/size/cable/battery in their specific implementation of a FPS). Noting the disadvantages of focal plane shutters applies broadly across a variety of solutions including the Hartblei, the Arca Swiss FPS that was abandoned, and even the XF.
Last edited:
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
I've been discussing this with the product manager and that specification is not yet solidified; based on our feedback (largely sourced from this thread) it is being reconsidered as it's clear there are some good reasons the max mechanical shutter length should be longer than 1".Has anyone confirmed that shutter speeds longer than 1 sec revert to the ES of the IQ4? In Phase marketing lit. they show the X shutter range from 1/1000 to 60 sec. which implies the X shutter can handle the full range.
Would you find 10" or 60" as a maximum more reasonable? I can't possibly see any value in using the mechanical shutter beyond several seconds; beyond that the ES would seem preferable as the fraction of a second roll-on and roll-off period would seem to be entirely moot. But it seems sensible to me to round up heavily (from several seconds to 10" or 60" or similar) as people find unusual use cases for specialized/advanced equipment.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
The use case here is adding fill flash (or in some cases, key-light flash) to architectural interior shots when direct daylight is streaming through the window. In this use case every stop of flash sync speed means (pick any):Some observations w.r.t. an XT design and an integrated focal plane shutter:
- flash sync: 1/125 => I can’t deny this, but how troublesome is this? Think about the huge amount of cameras with a sync speed of 1/125… 1/250. Can’t be that unusable. I’d also like to mention HSS.
- Another stop worth of lighting ratio between your flash and the ambient light
- The option to bring either half the power packs / heads or power packs and heads that are one stop less powerful
- The ability to light a room 40% taller/larger than you otherwise would have been able to do, without changing the ratio of the ambient light
HSS is a great technology that opens up focal plane cameras to flash at higher speeds in specific situations (e.g. close up portraits you can shoot at 1/4000th flash sync and overwhelm the sun if you choose) but it reduces the effective power output of the flash considerably, and is rarely useful in the use case of architectural interiors.
Yes, some people mix those two up. However, either can be problematic.- vibration: considerable => I question this. In many cases with DSLRs mirror slap and shutter vibration are mixed up. Here we only have risk of shutter vibration.
FPS vibration is most problematic within a "bounce" range, typically around 1/8th of a second plus or minus 1-2 stops. It is, for example, very rarely problematic at 1/125th or at 2". You can search "shutter bounce" for more information on this topic. It is typically more problematic with a lighter tripod (such as the one you might expect someone to travel with when they buy an XT motivated by its small and light form factor). It's also typically more problematic with a long lens; there are no such native lenses for the XT yet, but of course there will be in the future, so that has to be accounted for in the body design.
Note that there are three reasons this is more of a problem in high-end medium format than in the broader market:
- the FPS we are talking about here are for full-frame 645 and so are about twice the area and more than twice the weight, so create more vibration
- the resolution (150mp) makes any given absolute amount of vibration/shake/bounce more visually apparent when reviewed at 100% pixel level
- the user base here is disproportionally obsessed with image quality
Imagine you now want to add some new accessory such as a lens adapter for other types of lenses or a tilt-swing adapter. In such cases every mm you have eaten up in fixed-cannot-remove body depth is a mm you can't use for that accessory. I would definitely acknowledge this as a lower impact than the other items listed, but it is a real impact none the less.- flange distance: uses up several mm => no impact in case of fully integrating it in the camera design.
Last edited:
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Just a short question on warranty. Am I correct that there is no way to get more than a year even if you buy the XT and all lenses? (Over 35k) Upgrade a back to a IQ4 and an XT?
The only way to get 5years is buy the XT lenses and a new back as a bundle, correct?
Another point, if you now buy the XT there will be no chance for extended warranty on any new lenses (40/90..) correct?
This is the way Phase One has set it up yes. I would have vastly preferred a 5-year warranty myself. But speak with your dealer, as we (DT) certainly have creative workarounds for this as needed and I imagine other good dealers will as well. Notably, the lenses/shutters here are derived from the industrial/aerial line where cameras are put through hell and back in terms of environment, shot count, and vibration, so I would not expect many failures (that said, the only way to know for sure how many last 5-10 years is to wait 5-10 years).
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
I've owned the Alpa FPS for few years. I can confirm it has no shutter vibration issue.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
The shipment chain you pose is speculative, and I suspect the reality will be a lot more streamlined. But I too am speculating as the method/manner/pricing of that service has not been finalized, and will not be for many months.2. A lot of moving around and insurance/shipping costs. These lenses are not cheap and they are delicate. Shipping example, for a Arca user: User to dealer, Dealer to P1, P1 to Rodenstock to remove Copal and add X shutter. Rodenstock back to P1 for testing, P1 back to dealer, dealer back to customer. Lots of shipping, and overseas, customs, insurance, etc.
That said, the LENSES really are not that delicate. They are used in aircraft flying at altitude through all sorts of weather*. The amount of vibration here can be quite severe.
The COPAL SHUTTER is pretty delicate, especially when a lens with a heavy front element was mounted (e.g. 32HR).
The X-Shutter was developed for that aerial/industrial and for these specific lenses (including the big heavy front element 32HR). I expect it to be extremely durable during shipment, travel, and use.
Of course, only time will tell, but there is every reason to expect that not to be a problem.
*Typically in these applications they aren't taking pictures while flying through crap weather, but it will often be experienced on the way to or from an area that is not, or unexpectedly during.
Complete electronic aperture control. That will come in handy for metadata, lens correction, remote control, bracketing, live view (which you can set to open to full aperture, or remain stopped down, when entering live view) etc.(BTW, never been mentioned if the lens has the Rodenstock aperture only design or if the shutter has aperture control like a copal).
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Put on a long lens, mount to a normal travel-sized tripod, and shoot at 1/8th with the focal plane. Then repeat on ES. Post the resulting comparison at 100%.I've owned the FPS for few years. I can confirm the Alpa FPS has no shutter vibration issue.
Alpa makes great cameras, but they can't rewrite physics (nor can anyone else). Moving mechanical shutters, whether in the XF, a Sony, or Alpa cause vibration and focal plane shutters cause more vibration than leaf shutters.
What you mean is that you've never had a practical problem with vibration given what and how you shoot (length length, shutter speeds, tripod size/weight). That's the feedback I'd echo from our XF users as well as the testing I did with the Arca Swiss FPS unit; it's only problematic in narrow ranges of use cases. For many (probably most) users it may never once be a problem or only occasionally a minor annoyance. For still others it may be a significant limitation.
I was asked why a leaf shutter was used rather than a focal plane shutter and I listed the technical advantages* of a leaf shutter which includes that they don't cause as much vibration. This really is not a controversial statement.
*as well as the two advantages of an focal plane shutter that I can think of
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
Doug...
I really appreciate your information you've provided us. It's very helpful.
There is no question. To me, the XT is almost perfect (except having "no tilt" and "no tilt") and I want one. I'm glad P1 shows commitment to the tech cam.
The Alpa FPS is far from perfect but works for my landscape photography. It's too big and heavy compared to the tech cam and XT.
If I don't own the IQ4150, XF and tech cam, the price point of the IQ4150 and XT set is very attractive (for new owners). However, the cost of upgrading from previous P1 owner is very painful.
I just hope P1 can provide the previous owner of IQ and XF attractive upgrade paths.
Otherwise, P1 may lost the current royal customers like me. I guess most people who own IQ4150 will not buy the XT due to the high price and lack of attractive upgrade path. I also think some people who own the IQ will switch to Fuji or Hasselblad. Once they switch, they would never come back again.
To me, no questions, the XT is very attractive system. However, the entry point for previous P1 owner is very steep.
I completely understand your situation. Without help from P1, dealers can't do anything that much because it will eat up your profit.
Thanks
Pramote
I really appreciate your information you've provided us. It's very helpful.
There is no question. To me, the XT is almost perfect (except having "no tilt" and "no tilt") and I want one. I'm glad P1 shows commitment to the tech cam.
The Alpa FPS is far from perfect but works for my landscape photography. It's too big and heavy compared to the tech cam and XT.
If I don't own the IQ4150, XF and tech cam, the price point of the IQ4150 and XT set is very attractive (for new owners). However, the cost of upgrading from previous P1 owner is very painful.
I just hope P1 can provide the previous owner of IQ and XF attractive upgrade paths.
Otherwise, P1 may lost the current royal customers like me. I guess most people who own IQ4150 will not buy the XT due to the high price and lack of attractive upgrade path. I also think some people who own the IQ will switch to Fuji or Hasselblad. Once they switch, they would never come back again.
To me, no questions, the XT is very attractive system. However, the entry point for previous P1 owner is very steep.
I completely understand your situation. Without help from P1, dealers can't do anything that much because it will eat up your profit.
Thanks
Pramote
Put on a long lens, mount to a normal travel-sized tripod, and shoot at 1/8th with the focal plane. Then repeat on ES. Post the resulting comparison at 100%.
Alpa makes great cameras, but they can't rewrite physics (nor can anyone else). Moving mechanical shutters, whether in the XF, a Sony, or Alpa cause vibration and focal plane shutters cause more vibration than leaf shutters.
What you mean is that you've never had a practical problem with vibration given what and how you shoot (length length, shutter speeds, tripod size/weight). That's the feedback I'd echo from our XF users as well as the testing I did with the Arca Swiss FPS unit; it's only problematic in narrow ranges of use cases. For many (probably most) users it may never once be a problem or only occasionally a minor annoyance. For still others it may be a significant limitation.
I was asked why a leaf shutter was used rather than a focal plane shutter and I listed the technical advantages* of a leaf shutter which includes that they don't cause as much vibration. This really is not a controversial statement.
*as well as the two advantages of an focal plane shutter that I can think of
Pramote--another mind provoking post.I guess most people who own IQ4150 will not buy the XT due to the high price and lack of attractive upgrade path. I also think some people who own the IQ will switch to Fuji or Hasselblad. Once they switch, they would never come back again. Pramote
It is incredible the amount of choices MF shooters currently have. Enter the XT.
Once one has been on the Phase upgrade path for some time, it behoves one to carefully analyze where we want to go in the future in light of what we do with our images. I like to print. When the IQ4150 came out trade in values for IQ3100 models hovered around 50% of original price even with just 1 year of use and 4000 captures. Is this acceptable? What we can afford financially is a big factor plus what we feel is good for our photography and how we use our photographic tools. What is the end game?
As a non-professional have I hit the limits of my personal losses per upgrade with zero payback and a financial black hole? I was willing to keep my IQ4150 nearly forever based on P1 comments about future FW upgrades and new tools for use with my Alpa STC until the XT was announced. I would never have thought about selling my IQ4 until all this XT input and varied comments from like minded enthusiasts. Thank you all for getting me out of a blind rut.
So it appears Alpa users are boxed out of this Cambo based XT unless they want to loose big with trade ins. Cambo owners are lucky and over time this kit will fill out with more lens choices for other than extremely wide or 70mm (about 45mm in 35 equivalent terms) needs. Trading in an Alpa kit is highly cost prohibitive all while loosing tilt capabilities. I always imaged by Alpa kit would hover around values we had at the end of August, but early September brought change in the form of the XT.
No doubt the best image quality comes from the IQ4 today. But do I need one for my type of photography? That is the million dollar question. I seem to make likeable images with Leica M cameras, old Hasselblad cameras with old Phase backs, Pentax 645Z cameras, Phase XF cameras with IQ3100 DB, Fuji XT-2 cameras, Fuji GFX cameras and an Alpa STC camera with IQ3100 and IQ4150 DB. I am too old for stupid bragging rights ever since I owned the world's fastest sports car (until the Bugatti quad turbo came out) light weight model for 25 years. Owning it was one thing, but how I used it was more important in the end. That created respect. Sorry for the car analogy, but since an IQ4150 costs $50k without camera and lenses, it is the value of a decent car in financial terms since to make it viable one has to spend another 50% or $75k total.
Enter Fuji 100MP camera. It has more than what most would want in a MF camera today. Is the IQ coming out of that beast enough for me? Based on price alone some might think not, but Fuji is setting the MF world upside down with price and features. I have spoiled myself with my Phase gear over the years and stepping down in IQ might be a downer, but at least an other MF tool can still help me create images. Can I create satisfactory captures and images with a lesser camera than the Alpa/IQ4? I believe so. Will a tilt/shift G lens be offered by Fuji? Have I answered my inner questions? Not yet.
Landscapelover
Senior Subscriber Member
Lou,
It's never been a better time to be a photographer.
I don't think you will be happy using anything else besides your alpa and IQ4 achromatic. The Fuji GFX 100 may give you great prints but "the journey is more enjoyable than the destination". The process of tech cam is very meditating.
It's not the XF that keep me upgrading the IQ, it's the tech cam.
I am actually glad that Phase One shows commitment to the tech cam & landscape photography and stays competitive with the Fuji and Hasselblad. It's a huge step. I am quite sure, eventually, they will look at the price and want us back.
I'd like to have it. However, without a good upgrade path, I probably will stick with the tech cam. I'm not in hurry. I can wait until next year and see the price will be more attractive.
Don't let the XT annoys you. Look on the bright side, you can tilt and shift more than the XT and save some battery life.
Best,
Pramote
It's never been a better time to be a photographer.
I don't think you will be happy using anything else besides your alpa and IQ4 achromatic. The Fuji GFX 100 may give you great prints but "the journey is more enjoyable than the destination". The process of tech cam is very meditating.
It's not the XF that keep me upgrading the IQ, it's the tech cam.
I am actually glad that Phase One shows commitment to the tech cam & landscape photography and stays competitive with the Fuji and Hasselblad. It's a huge step. I am quite sure, eventually, they will look at the price and want us back.
I'd like to have it. However, without a good upgrade path, I probably will stick with the tech cam. I'm not in hurry. I can wait until next year and see the price will be more attractive.
Don't let the XT annoys you. Look on the bright side, you can tilt and shift more than the XT and save some battery life.
Best,
Pramote
Educate yourself.I'd welcome any factual corrections, and would gladly incorporate them into my post to ensure it is accurate. But I suspect you're misreading my post, as I'm very confident in each of these points.
Note that "FPS" here stands for "Focal Plane Shutter" generically rather than for the "Alpa FPS" which I only addressed in one point on my post (about weight/size/cable/battery in their specific implementation of a FPS). Noting the disadvantages of focal plane shutters applies broadly across a variety of solutions including the Hartblei, the Arca Swiss FPS that was abandoned, and even the XF.
https://www.alpa.ch/en/article/alpa-12-fps
Read it. All of it, and the linked documents. Then you can come back and list for us the wide range of lenses that the FPS can electronically control.
If you don’t want to do that, so be it.
Sowing FUD is not a smart sales strategy when you don’t understand the capabilities of the competition.
This is such nonsense. You’re basically telling someone to use a poor combination of gear.Put on a long lens, mount to a normal travel-sized tripod...
And define “long”.
I’m pretty confident in stating that there isn’t a “long” lens that can be successfully mounted and used on the XT that can’t also be successfully mounted and used on the FPS.
But the opposite is far from the case.
I could list dozens of “long” lenses that can be successfully used on the FPS that cannot be used on the XT. Many of them you can also use with movements with the right combination of kit.
Personally I have successfully used Canon lenses from the 200/2 right up to the 1200/5.6 on the FPS. With, of course, electronic control of aperture.
I also shot with the Jonel 200 (that’s 5080mm focal length) mounted on the FPS.