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)

Pemihan

Well-known member
I think where people feel angry and abandoned is when a new major component comes out that's not backward compatible with the system they are vested in. It doesn't mean that their current system stops working, but it does mean that their current system is all of a sudden a dead end, which was never hinted at or communicated outright when they bought that system. I think it's very legitimate to feel angry when that type of a thing happens ESPECIALLY when you get vested in a system by purchasing the last product in a chain that all of a sudden becomes a dead end a year or two after you bought it.
I agree! IMO a very bad business decision. To make the IQ3 backs obsolete in regards to the XT will make a lot of people angry (including me!) I won't be upgrading mine unless I at some point in the far future get a used IQ4 from a private party.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
......

But Phase One introduced a tech camera. That doesn't compete with their XF line. So what does it break? Someone with a large tech cam system from another manufacturer? Mechanical shutters are on their way out, so all those expensive lenses will need remounting anyway. The bodies themselves aren't a huge part of the expense, and the back, assuming recent Phase One, is entirely upgradeable.

Yes, I *am* being deliberately obtuse. I completely understand the reaction. My own "investment" is in systems one rung down the Ladder of Ridiculous Expense (LRE - I'm trademarking it). But the Leica S system is not thriving, and the X1D doesn't excite me, although I use it and it functions perfectly well. The Fuji's don't appeal at all - I wish I could change that (Although the 100 felt pretty good in the hand. Maybe I'll give them another try...)

But I'm extremely excited about *any* new system. It's easy to just add MP and call it an advance. This is something new.

Matt
People who want this stuff or think they need it will buy it....no doubt Phase One reckon that they have identified a decent sized market.
meh
I wont comment on the FujiGFX100 - except to say I like it a lot so easy to shoot with. I do see myself buying a used copy of an XID though - kinda regret selling my one - it is a great walk around snap shooter.
 

Jeffrey

Active member
Other than a few of us on this web board who have handled and/or shot the XT in a demo session, I'm told by a dealer that no XT's have been delivered to customers. Demo units with beta versions of new firmware have been delivered to dealers.

So, the fodder posted on this forum in the last few days is mostly speculation and opinion.

Jack (moderator), do we need this nonsense? I'm done and am not returning to this forum page even after the XT I have on order arrives.

I prefer to allocate my time elsewhere.
 

RLB

Member
Peter,

The key word is "invested". Would you advise anyone to invest in camera equipment? (I assume not). So what have people actually done. They've spent a lot of money on top end gear. They either made back the cost through business, or they are amateurs having fun. In neither case is the introduction of the Next Great Thing unexpected, or even to be regretted. As always, nothing anyone owns stops working when the NGT is announced.

I suspect that, all history notwithstanding, people expect good resale value for their top-end gear when it is no longer top-end. Well, it's a common enough human failing - I owned an IQ140, after all :cry:. And then there's someone telling them that they no longer own the NGT - that that title has moved on.

But when I try to think of who exactly is worse off after a NGT announcement, the answer is "no one".

Unless they actually *invested* in camera equipment, which would be silly :chug:

Best,

Matt

Matt, having been in professional end of the business for 35 years I agree completely with your take on this. In the old days of film only (Pre 90's) when one purchased a Sinar or Leica or an expensive lens it was not unusual for the value to escalate as it was essentially a "long term" purchase and the price of new one would rise each year, and there was no "upgrades" you'd already purchased the best. In a way it felt like an investment.

Once digital became the dominant media, everything changed. What you had is worth a fraction of what you paid last year, technology marches on, etc, etc. The reality of this brought me to the following conclusion for my own purposes; as a business can I generate enough profits from this new purchase prior to it becoming "obsolete" and worthless? If so I'd buy it. Indeed with the ushering in of the digital age almost everything has become "disposable" and a "consumable". For those that have no pressure to justify the purchase financially its a different game.

To fuel this "mind set" manufacturers of all products are constantly developing shorter and shorter "life cycles" for new products when introduced. My litmus test for this has been does the new product allow me to work far more efficiently or do something I could not before? Or is it just a shiny new thing that's a lateral move with more overhead for me to somehow absorb?

The XT looks to be an interesting addition to P1's line up, and I'm reasonably sure that as Apples design gurus are already working on the next phone as the new one is released, P1 is doing the same thing.

There is no standing still only moving forward...
 
Last edited:

Massive Si

Active member
it's P1's decision to make the IQ3 redundant in this instance
If they wanted to help their customers keep value in their products - they could. But they have decided (so far) not to.

This is a mistake imo
 

RLB

Member
it's P1's decision to make the IQ3 redundant in this instance
If they wanted to help their customers keep value in their products - they could. But they have decided (so far) not to.

This is a mistake imo
I'm asking for clarification on this...by "redundant" do you mean "obsolete" ?

If so I'd have to disagree to an extent. Thus far the only incompatibility I see moving forward for the IQ3 is with the XT. If your not in the market for an XT it seems irrelevant.

All companies make new products that are either somewhat or completely incompatible with previous products, nothing new here. Most of this is driven by the electronics...the iQ4 while looking the same on the outside is vastly different in every way on the inside. Those differences are going to allow options that were not previously possible since it now runs C1 and Linux. Precisely why buying anything electronic now days is not and investment.

The IQ3 is still a fabulous DB. And at the moment has more functionality than an IQ4.


Robert
 

Pemihan

Well-known member
The IQ3 is still a fabulous DB. And at the moment has more functionality than an IQ4.

Robert
Absolutely! But that doesn't change the fact that I still find it to be a bad decision to omit IQ3 backs from being used fully on the XT. As I said before, when the IQ3 can control the XF surely it could to some extent control the XT via a firmware update. At the very least control aperture and fire the shutter. Should be no big deal, just a matter of priority!
Anyway enough of this, I made my point.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Absolutely! But that doesn't change the fact that I still find it to be a bad decision to omit IQ3 backs from being used fully on the XT. As I said before, when the IQ3 can control the XF surely it could to some extent control the XT via a firmware update. At the very least control aperture and fire the shutter. Should be no big deal, just a matter of priority!
Anyway enough of this, I made my point.
I agree. It reminds me of how the IQ1 series was hobbled by not being given the new firmware features such as exposure maps that were in the IQ2/IQ3 series a couple of years ago.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I agree. It reminds me of how the IQ1 series was hobbled by not being given the new firmware features such as exposure maps that were in the IQ2/IQ3 series a couple of years ago.
And C1 would be more universally adopted if it supported all systems and not "all but the two or three we don't like this month".

At this point, everyone should have a good idea what Phase One will and won't do to ensure backwards or sideways compatibility. You'll have a great system if you keep up, and feel quickly abandoned if you don't. This is not a criticism. It's their business model and it has been successful. Leica doesn't make it easy for their "loyal customers" either. (And I've argued above - a bit more than half seriously - that one isn't worse off as a result.)

I so frequently hear "it would be easy for company X to do Y". I suspect that it looks very different from company X's point of view. Their response would be "Sure. When we put out the 30 fires and supply promised functionality for products already announced. And hire 5 magically trained elves."

Don't get me wrong. I'm the "beneficiary" of this approach, too. Half of my photos were C1 processed, and half of my photos are with unsupported cameras. I hate Adobe like death itself, and would probably move everything back to C1 if I could. But LR is not selective about what it will process, and so LR it is. (Apologies to anyone with an Adobe unsupported camera. I'm not aware of you, but you may well exist.)

Speaking of C1, and a bit :OT:, does C1 do a better job with Fuji blue skies than Adobe? Leica and Hassy aren't identical, but they look almost realistic. Fuji looks like the backdrop for Forbidden Planet. I know, XT thread. I'll stop now.

Matt
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
In my experience C1 does better with Fuji files than any other converter ... be they X or standard Bayer conversions. IMHO.
 

Geoff

Well-known member
With Phase One also in the hardware business, one senses two trends: one aims to keep continuity and legacy - and they have been pretty good with their older backs. The other trend is for a design of a whole system, which sometimes cuts the bonds and puts a new answer on the table.

In this case, Phase went for the latter trend - featuring integration and user simplicity. They based their design on both the IQ4 and a new shutter design (and for the moment, new lenses). The decision to limit the camera to the most current back AND new lens mounts may make sense from a design viewpoint, but its a tough message to absorb. But they may well know their market and feel this is the best answer.

In their zeal, its possible they under-estimated the pushback from their older user base, used to open platforms and choice of backs and lenses.
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Just some notes from reading everything from the past few days...

The XT body works just as well as any other similar tech camera with any generation of Phase One back (e.g. IQ3 and older).

The X-Shutter used in the native XT-Lenses was designed to simplify the tech camera shutter situation. By using the power, control, and UI of the IQ4 back they avoided needing a separate controller, battery, and cable. The integration also means the back knows the aperture, lens model, and serial number of the lens which is critical for automatic lens correction and for an easy user experience. This is, in my opinion, a giant leap forward, especially for users that are not interested in deep technical tinkering.

It's absolutely (technically/engineering-wise) possible that Phase One could have designed the X-Shutter to alternatively run off a separate controller, battery, cable, with manually entered metadata. That would have unquestionably added development time and cost. I'm not terribly surprised they opted not to do this as, users who find that to be an acceptable set of compromise (in order to use with an older back for instance) can already do this (other than the manual entering of lens model metadata, which I expect will come eventually either way). You can buy Cambo lenses mounted in a Rodenstock E-Shutter and use a separate controller/battery/cable. It doesn't have quite the same durability, and the top speed is lower, but otherwise it's a fine solution if the separate controller/battery/cable and manual aperture metadata entry don't bother you.
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Given that the XT has no tilt functionality, limited shift, the only value it brings to the table is the X-shutter. Therefore, unless I'm missing something, the XT has no value to owners of IQ3 and earlier backs. By not providing the means of controlling the X shutter with older backs, Phase has essentially turned its back on its customers unless they're IQ 4 owners.
 

Pemihan

Well-known member
Just some notes from reading everything from the past few days...

The XT body works just as well as any other similar tech camera with any generation of Phase One back (e.g. IQ3 and older).

The X-Shutter used in the native XT-Lenses was designed to simplify the tech camera shutter situation. By using the power, control, and UI of the IQ4 back they avoided needing a separate controller, battery, and cable. The integration also means the back knows the aperture, lens model, and serial number of the lens which is critical for automatic lens correction and for an easy user experience. This is, in my opinion, a giant leap forward, especially for users that are not interested in deep technical tinkering.

It's absolutely (technically/engineering-wise) possible that Phase One could have designed the X-Shutter to alternatively run off a separate controller, battery, cable, with manually entered metadata. That would have unquestionably added development time and cost. I'm not terribly surprised they opted not to do this as, users who find that to be an acceptable set of compromise (in order to use with an older back for instance) can already do this (other than the manual entering of lens model metadata, which I expect will come eventually either way). You can buy Cambo lenses mounted in a Rodenstock E-Shutter and use a separate controller/battery/cable. It doesn't have quite the same durability, and the top speed is lower, but otherwise it's a fine solution if the separate controller/battery/cable and manual aperture metadata entry don't bother you.
Well when they could get the XF working with both IQ3 and 4 including power share, aperture control and shutter control it would certainly also be possible to make the IQ3 at least control the aperture and shutter of the XT including power. They chose not to do so! Don't make it more complicated than that.

Personally I probably wouldn't have gotten the XT anyway as I'm perfectly happy with my Cambo WRS but never the less it pisses me off that they shut out equipment bought new maybe only two years ago for up to $40-50000. I mean it's not cheap disposable cameras we're talking about here!

I get that this is a (IMO bad) business decision P1 has made and they are of course free to do so but it at least have me rethinking my options for the future. The XT looks like it could be a great camera but iIMO P1 has shot themselves in the foot with the way this has been handled.
 

Pemihan

Well-known member
Given that the XT has no tilt functionality, limited shift, the only value it brings to the table is the X-shutter. Therefore, unless I'm missing something, the XT has no value to owners of IQ3 and earlier backs. By not providing the means of controlling the X shutter with older backs, Phase has essentially turned its back on its customers unless they're IQ 4 owners.
Exactly!

And what happens a few years down the line when the XF mkII comes? "IQ5 only sorry"
 
Last edited:

Massive Si

Active member
Well when they could get the XF working with both IQ3 and 4 including power share, aperture control and shutter control it would certainly also be possible to make the IQ3 at least control the aperture and shutter of the XT including power. They chose not to do so! Don't make it more complicated than that.

Personally I probably wouldn't have gotten the XT anyway as I'm perfectly happy with my Cambo WRS but never the less it pisses me off that they shut out equipment bought new maybe only two years ago for up to $40-50000. I mean it's not cheap disposable cameras we're talking about here!

I get that this is a (IMO bad) business decision P1 has made and they are of course free to do so but it at least have me rethinking my options for the future. The XT looks like it could be a great camera but iIMO P1 has shot themselves in the foot with the way this has been handled.
Agree with this
it may not seem much of a problem to most, but to some of us, its an indication of what customers can expect from P1 after they have handed over a considerable amount of their hard earned cash to join the ecosystem

In the face of encroachment from Fuji & Hasselblad, Phase One could be protecting their customer's purchases by keeping their hardware relevant and thus residuals higher - rather than dropping off a cliff and expecting the customer to cough up tens of thousands more. (Even Apple keep their hardware active for a decent length of time, and that's just hundreds of $ not tens of thousands)

anyway, I'll not be a squeaky wheel any more on this thread, I've made my point.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Well when they could get the XF working with both IQ3 and 4 including power share, aperture control and shutter control it would certainly also be possible to make the IQ3 at least control the aperture and shutter of the XT including power. They chose not to do so! Don't make it more complicated than that.
Pardon, but it is more complicated than that.

The IQ3 (an extension of the IQ1/2 platform) had the appropriate electronics and controllers to interact with the XF. In that relationship the XF is doing all the heavy lifting when it came to power and lens control. Regarding power: the XF is doing the power management itself, with the IQ3 simply sharing its battery to the XF as the XF requests. Regarding aperture/shutter control: the XF itself does all the management and can accept requests from the IQ3 to make a change to those settings. The XF is a co-equal brain working together with the IQ3.

The X-Shutter is NOT the same thing as an XF from that point of view. It is significantly smaller and lighter and can't do much of anything in and of itself. The IQ4 was built specifically to have the required hardware and firmware to act as the power supply and brains to an X-Shutter. It's a good first approximation to say accurate to say the X-Shutter is an "accessory" to the IQ4 platform; the brains are all in the IQ4.

Now look, Phase One has brilliant engineers, and I'm quite sure they could have worked around all this if it was deemed mission critical. Maybe each X-Shutter could have had more components added to it to be more autonomous. Maybe they could have offered a service to take IQ3 backs and add the required hardware to allow it to be the brains of an X-Shutter. Or as I suggested earlier they could provided an alternative path such as an external controller with separate battery. But all of those options would have carried significant cost (depending on the option, costs such as development complexity, time, weight, size, component costs). My point is only that it is "more complicated than that". There wasn't a switch sitting there ready to be flipped that would make an IQ3 control an X-Shutter.

I 100% understand the annoyance/frustration or even anger that an IQ3 cannot control an X-Shutter. You bought a system not that long ago and now there is a new thing that it's not compatible with. I even share that frustration, as we have a ton of IQ3 clients that we'd love to sell an XT with X-Shutter lenses to.

The IQ3 was the last in a generation of technology (the IQ1/2/3 backs all being mostly the same platform with each new IQ offering incremental improvements and sometimes a new sensor), and that means it becomes out of date sooner than previous backs in that series. I remember very similar (and justified) frustration from owners of the P65+ (the P+ backs all being mostly the same platform with each new P+ offering incremental improvements and a new sensor). If you bought a P30+ it was many years before something was made that didn't work with your back, but if you bought a P65+ it was only a couple years. If you bought an IQ180 it was many years before something was made that didn't work with your back, but if you bought an IQ3 100mp it was only a couple. I would expect that those buying (or upgrading to) an IQ4 will find that it will be many years before anything is made that is not compatible with their system. But (and feel free to link to this in several years) when Phase One is on its 3rd or 4th incremental iteration of the technology in the IQ4, that will likely not be the case.

Generational leaps leave people behind, and frustrate customers. They are also the only way to stay relevant.

I get your frustration. I get their decision.

It's only partial consolation of course, but the IQ3 can be traded-in toward an IQ4, which, in addition to being ready for an X-Shutter offers quite a few features/advantages including Automated Frame Averaging (another feature only possible because P1 totally redid the architecture and made a generational leap).
 
Last edited:

Abstraction

Well-known member
I think that even if Phase had announced that a solution to accommodate legacy backs with X-shutter is in the works would have gone a long way to ameliorate the annoyance of the iq3 users.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Given that the XT has no tilt functionality, limited shift, the only value it brings to the table is the X-shutter. Therefore, unless I'm missing something, the XT has no value to owners of IQ3 and earlier backs. By not providing the means of controlling the X shutter with older backs, Phase has essentially turned its back on its customers unless they're IQ 4 owners.
Main potential values of an XT to an IQ3 owner (with which the XT is "just a normal tech camera"):
- Form factor: it has its own blend of movements/weight/size compared to other tech/field cameras.
- Rotation: it has rotation from horizontal to vertical built in without the need to remove the back from the body or the camera from the tripod. Arca Swiss Rotamount and Cambo Wide RS1600 also offer this, and any given user may prefer any of the three specific implementations.
- Upgrade path: say someone owns an IQ3 and XF, but no tech camera. An XT provides them normal tech cam functionality today, and if they upgrade to an IQ4 they already have the XT body that enables a simpler workflow.

Of course, for any given user these may not outweigh other factors such as movement range.
 
Top