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)

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Also, no need to reply to this, but I'd be remiss if I didn't thank the several people who posted kind words about me. I really do appreciate it; I just don't want to linger on that element of the thread now that we've all moved on.
 

med

Active member
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.
Didn't they mention that compatibility with Alpa Silex is a possibility in the future (although not guaranteed)?

*edit: this is apparently just wishful thinking. I recalled a blogger's "hope" as something that Phase One had stated, which is not the case (unfortunately)
 
Last edited:

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Great camera, but I feel two things are missing...

Hi, Very nice camera. But there are two things it should have that are missing.

The first is tilts. Architecture shooters need shift, but landscape photographers probably feel tilts are more important.

The other thing is an electronic viewfinder. I would hoped that Phase One would have an electronic bus for an EVF already on the IQ3 series, not having that on the IQ4 is an omission I simply don’t get.

Now, my opinion doesn’t matter, as I will never be able to afford another Phase One back.

Just to say, there was a fully integrated MFD system for many years. Namely, the HCam B1 from Hartblei.de. That was a camera I planned to buy. I would say that the Alpa FPS was pretty similar.

But, as things came by, I settled on a Sony A7rII. It covers almost all my needs. I use it often with HCam Master TSII, that allows for +/- 15 mm shift or 10 degrees of tilt with any Canon EF mounted lens.

So, that gives me 12 mm shift and 7 degrees of tilt with the Canon 24/3.5 TSE LIII and 10 degrees of tilt with my 28-85 and 35-135 Contax zooms.

Another small reflection, it is a pity Phase One does not offer a 100 MP 44x33 mm back.

Best regards
Erik
 

med

Active member
Re: Great camera, but I feel two things are missing...

Hi, Very nice camera. But there are two things it should have that are missing.

The first is tilts. Architecture shooters need shift, but landscape photographers probably feel tilts are more important.

The other thing is an electronic viewfinder. ........

Best regards
Erik
Agreed! As it is I like the XT, but it stops short of being something truly groundbreaking (and who knows what the roadmap looks like?). Tilt, an EVF, with some UI tweaks to the back could turn it into a totally unique mirrorless monster for ultimate image quality in a field-friendly package.
 

Don Libby

Well-known member
It seems to me that P1 has built their empire on upgrades.Buy the latest greatest today and use it tomorrow to upgrade again. On thesurface it sounds good however the loss of value/money isn’t. Reminds me of adealer, here try this you’ll like it. You try it like it – want it, and willingto pay thousands for “IT”. 18-months later the newest latest greatest is releasedcosting more than you already invested. Not to worry the dealer says use yourold “IT” to buy the newest “IT”. Then you find out the value of the old one isn’tas much as you thought it should be.

Not a bad idea when you stop and think about it. Built inobsoletion from one series to another. Keeps people running for that brass ringyet never fully catching it. We haveonly ourselves to blame; we need the latest greatest “IT”. We forget that mostof the mre important photography was performed years ago way before digital wasa thought. I’m not saying digital is bad I’m saying we as consumers need toreach a point where it’s more about the art than the camera.

I stopped using P1 a couple years ago when I tired ofchasing the brass ring. I don’t miss it (the chase). I still use C1 as it isone of the few things that P1 has introduced that you don’t need to have yourrunning shoes on to keep using it.
 

darr

Well-known member
It seems to me that P1 has built their empire on upgrades.Buy the latest greatest today and use it tomorrow to upgrade again. On thesurface it sounds good however the loss of value/money isn’t. Reminds me of adealer, here try this you’ll like it. You try it like it – want it, and willingto pay thousands for “IT”. 18-months later the newest latest greatest is releasedcosting more than you already invested. Not to worry the dealer says use yourold “IT” to buy the newest “IT”. Then you find out the value of the old one isn’tas much as you thought it should be.

Not a bad idea when you stop and think about it. Built inobsoletion from one series to another. Keeps people running for that brass ringyet never fully catching it. We haveonly ourselves to blame; we need the latest greatest “IT”. We forget that mostof the mre important photography was performed years ago way before digital wasa thought. I’m not saying digital is bad I’m saying we as consumers need toreach a point where it’s more about the art than the camera.

I stopped using P1 a couple years ago when I tired ofchasing the brass ring. I don’t miss it (the chase). I still use C1 as it isone of the few things that P1 has introduced that you don’t need to have yourrunning shoes on to keep using it.
Don,

I continue to shoot film projects because the chase there for me is image making and not gear. Not saying we do not have that with digital, but like you outline above, it can get complicated if your chasing that brass ring or magic bullet through digital technology. Actually, I think they do that on purpose as it keeps the chase going. Some like complicated road maps to get to the same result as some following the K.I.S.S. philosophy. To each their own.

I understand getting metadata from the lens, exposure, etc. is important to some photographers, but not for me. If it was, I would be going for a Fuji MFD and I may end up with one after my CFV-50c is no longer a productive tool. I cannot fathom the amount of money a photographer must spend to be in that upgrade cycle. I spend my boatload of money on other things, but I do embrace my ALPA cameras and have for almost ten years now. They let me shoot film and digital and that is perfect for me.

All the talk about tilt and shift makes me love my 4x5 even more because it is so simple!

Best to you and Sandy!

Kind regards,
Darr
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
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
One of my concerns is that this 'shutter' is simply a stop gap for the ultimate delivery of global electronic shutters. At that point the DB will do all of the work and the user simply would have to enter the f stop and focal length. And..... I don't think that day is that far off.

Victor
 

Christopher

Active member
One of my concerns is that this 'shutter' is simply a stop gap for the ultimate delivery of global electronic shutters. At that point the DB will do all of the work and the user simply would have to enter the f stop and focal length. And..... I don't think that day is that far off.

Victor

I think this is the big question. How far... my guess is at around 5-7 years. That would mean we see an IQ 5250 before that. However, in the end it’s all about Sony. We know how long it took to get from the sensor announcement to the I4 and how long Phase needed to get it at least stable. We know how long it took Fuji with the GFX100.

For now there is nothing that gives us the faintest hint on new Sony tech in the MF world. I’m sure we will know once something is ready.
 

buildbot

Well-known member
I think this is the big question. How far... my guess is at around 5-7 years. That would mean we see an IQ 5250 before that. However, in the end it’s all about Sony. We know how long it took to get from the sensor announcement to the I4 and how long Phase needed to get it at least stable. We know how long it took Fuji with the GFX100.

For now there is nothing that gives us the faintest hint on new Sony tech in the MF world. I’m sure we will know once something is ready.
Medium format sensors with global shutters already exist: https://www.teledynedalsa.com/en/products/imaging/cameras/falcon4/
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
One of my concerns is that this 'shutter' is simply a stop gap for the ultimate delivery of global electronic shutters. At that point the DB will do all of the work and the user simply would have to enter the f stop and focal length.
That's exactly what it is.

It's just that I expect that stop gap will be for many years based on what I'm hearing from more recent conversations; for many clients thats dozens of trips, and a metric ton of image opportunities, in the future. Global shutters in high-end large-sensor quality-driven cameras are the cold fusion of high-end photography; always seemingly around the corner. There's just currently far too much of a cost to image quality to designing your sensor with a global shutter.

Of course, we're all just speculating/guessing (including the people at these companies developing this technology). Feel free to come back to this thread and mock me openly if it comes far sooner :).

Even when global shutters do come to the high-end there will be a lot of value in automatic lens metadata at that point (aperture/model/length/serial) and of automatic aperture control from the back/software. If you stop using the shutter component because your IQ6 300mp has a global shutter that doesn't negate the value of the X-Shutter in making a Rodenstock HR lens play friendly in a modern/streamlined workflow.
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
That's exactly what it is.

It's just that I expect that stop gap will be for many years based on what I'm hearing from more recent conversations; for many clients thats dozens of trips, and a metric ton of image opportunities, in the future. Global shutters in high-end large-sensor quality-driven cameras are the cold fusion of high-end photography; always seemingly around the corner. There's just currently far too much of a cost to image quality to designing your sensor with a global shutter.

Of course, we're all just speculating/guessing (including the people at these companies developing this technology). Feel free to come back to this thread and mock me openly if it comes far sooner :).

Even when global shutters do come to the high-end there will be a lot of value in automatic lens metadata at that point (aperture/model/length/serial) and of automatic aperture control from the back/software. If you stop using the shutter component because your IQ6 300mp has a global shutter that doesn't negate the value of the X-Shutter in making a Rodenstock HR lens play friendly in a modern/streamlined workflow.
My point is that this current 'shutter' is very/extremely expensive. It just makes no sense to me to invest in this when we are so close to another ultimate solution. I think the camera is lovely and I'm sure that all of the data input will be figured out when a global shutter is here.

Doug.... think about it..... let's say 5 lenses retro fitted into this system will more than likely cost at least 20 grand.... I'm being very conservative. It just doesn't make much sense to me even though I like the overall camera concept.

Victor
 

Christopher

Active member
My point is that this current 'shutter' is very/extremely expensive. It just makes no sense to me to invest in this when we are so close to another ultimate solution. I think the camera is lovely and I'm sure that all of the data input will be figured out when a global shutter is here.

Doug.... think about it..... let's say 5 lenses retro fitted into this system will more than likely cost at least 20 grand.... I'm being very conservative. It just doesn't make much sense to me even though I like the overall camera concept.

Victor

20k is still a lot cheaper than 60k to get new lenses. ;)
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
My point is that this current 'shutter' is very/extremely expensive. It just makes no sense to me to invest in this when we are so close to another ultimate solution. I think the camera is lovely and I'm sure that all of the data input will be figured out when a global shutter is here.

Doug.... think about it..... let's say 5 lenses retro fitted into this system will more than likely cost at least 20 grand.... I'm being very conservative. It just doesn't make much sense to me even though I like the overall camera concept.

Victor
I don't disagree with your overall assessment because of course you're making a judgement call on what something is worth to you, and whatever you choose in that regard is by definition right.

But I think, if anything, Christophers 5-7 years guess is probably optimistic, and the first large-sensor back that implements a global shutter probably won't be cheap. So if you're waiting for global shutters to come make high-end field-cameras an inexpensive proposition I suspect you're barking up the wrong tree (or have far more patience than I would). That of course does NOT mean you need to buy an IQ4 or switch to X-Shutters... copal shutters (used) or sensor-based shutter or Rodenstock eShutters with external controller are all very worthwhile options depending on your needs/wants/priorities/budget and tolerance for cables/complexity, just as they were prior to the announcement of the XT. And importantly, like always, what you already own will impact some of that calculus.

An IQ3 or IQ4 on any brand of tech camera with copal or aperture mount lenses is still a tremendous photographic tool, just as it was before the XT.

The XT is a step forward in simplicity, ease of use, speed of workflow, and weight/size for its features. In short, it makes the capabilities of a view/field/tech cameras accessible to those for whom they were too large, heavy, complicated, or cumbersome. In my personal opinion the net effect (for me) of the improvements is that the XT is more enjoyable to shoot with it, even though I'm not otherwise bothered by traditional tech camera workflows (being kind of a nerdy tinkerer at heart). Whether the XT is a good fit for any given photographer is, of course, a personal matter.
 

algrove

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.
Not true
As an IQ4 owner I cannot enter the lens used when on my Alpa nor shift values except if I enter it in Keywords-that's a lot of fun.
 
Last edited:

algrove

Well-known member
I get your frustration. I get their decision.
I beg your pardon, but you do not get our frustration since we pay $50k after tax (which for most buying IQ3 or IQ4 are paying taxes in the range of 35%) in the US. Thus we must earn $80k in order to buy a Phase back only (i.e., no camera or lenses) for $50k of disposable income and after not very long $40k of that $80k we have lost to Phase in trade in value. Shame on me for buying my first Phase back.

YOU use IQ demo devices for free as a dealer employee unless you are crazy to own your own.
 
Last edited:

gerald.d

Well-known member
Re: Great camera, but I feel two things are missing...

Just to say, there was a fully integrated MFD system for many years. Namely, the HCam B1 from Hartblei.de. That was a camera I planned to buy. I would say that the Alpa FPS was pretty similar.
I'm not entirely sure how you are using the term "fully integrated MFD system" with reference to the HCam B1. Yes, it could control the aperture on Canon lenses, but it was not, for example, capable of powering the focusing motors for the "fly by wire" lenses (such as the 85/1.2).

The HCam separately integrated the lens to the camera, and the camera to the back. But it wasn't "fully integrated" in the same sense that the XT is, where all three parts integrate seamlessly.

And it isn't really fair to compare it to the ALPA FPS, but there's no real benefit in digging into that here. The FPS was so far in advance of the HCam that it killed it dead in the water.

What Stefan achieved in actually delivering his camera to market was nothing short of a miracle. He got there first, and it's great to see it remembered.

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Not true
As an IQ4 owner I cannot enter the lens used when on my Alpa nor shift values except if I enter it in Keywords-that's a lot of fun.
You’d think that given the power of the IQ4 that they could add a tech camera UI page that would allow you to select from the very well known list of real technical camera lenses (or enter Focal length) and also allow you to enter shift amounts. Heck, that’s how I set up eFinder on my iPhone.

Having the exif data with shift values would allow you to accurately select the lens corrections in C1.

Anyway, I probably sound like a broken record on this one. We asked for it on the IQ2/3 series but it never went anywhere. :banghead:
 
Last edited:

gerald.d

Well-known member
I've been thinking about the XT a lot over the last few days, and have to admit that I'm now really struggling to see the point of it.

The problem is, Phase One clearly came up with a checklist of things the camera needed to deliver, but in delivering on all the points, have been forced to compromise its capabilities to such a degree that they have ended up delivering something that (a) pisses off almost their entire existing customer base; and (b) ends up fundamentally failing to completely deliver the required capability to any photographic genre, because in trying to compete against everyone all at once, they fail everywhere. Regardless of what your photography requirements are, there is always a better solution than the XT.

To set the context for this, I think we need to take a step back and consider what this camera actually is. I know this is stating the obvious, but it needs to be said.

This is Phase One's mirrorless medium format camera. Its direct competitors are the Fuji GFX100, and the Hasselblad X1D.

If those two ecosystems didn't exist, then neither would the XT. This is Phase One reacting to its competition, and not leading them, as it has done in the past. Phase One clearly don't have the resources to develop an entirely new mirrorless camera ecosystem from scratch, and so have to put something together from the existing "parts bins".

There is nothing fundamentally new being delivered here apart from the integration -

Existing back (which, as I understand from other threads on this forum still has significant issues, a year following its launch).
Existing lenses
Existing shutter
Existing technical camera

Now, before anyone chimes in claiming I am being disrespectful to the amount of effort that has been expended on creating this product, I need to caveat what I'm saying. It is a very clever tool, and whilst it is fundamentally built on existing sub-components, the integration that makes it such a clever tool would have required a significant amount of R&D to bring this camera to market.

But creating the camera from existing parts bins has meant that it has been severely compromised in almost every single aspect of its capabilities.

IF (and I fully accept that for a few people, this is a big "if") you absolutely must have a full frame 150MP sensor in your "mirrorless" medium format camera; and IF (and I quite honestly suspect that this is a very small subset of those who fall into the first "if" category) you need to electronically control the lens without additional cables and want lens EXIF data recorded in the file; and IF (now we're into a subset, of a subset, of a very few people) you absolutely must have leaf shutter speeds faster that 1/250th of a second, then this is the camera for you.

Or is it?

The Fuji and Hasselblad both have their idiosyncrasies, but they both do one thing way better than the XT does (the Fuji especially), and that is that they can be used - properly - handheld, because they both have viewfinders (and the Fuji adds an articulating rear screen).

Who, seriously, is going to be using the XT off-tripod, where the only way to compose your frame and see what you're shooting is by looking at the rear screen of the digital back? And then if you want to adjust any exposure parameter you're going to be tapping away at a small screen rather than simply turning a dial?

I would be astonished if anyone were to respond to this and claim that the XT makes sense as a handheld shooter, but by all means give it a go. Does anyone here use their technical camera handheld and rely on using the back both for composition and setting exposure parameters?

So right off the bat, Phase One have failed to seriously target their actual competition with this camera. Again, I maintain, if there were no Fuji or Hasselblad mirrorless MF systems, this camera would not exist. And we haven't even had to talk about price.

Of course, as photographers, we all inherently recognise that the XT makes no sense as a handheld camera, which is why almost no-one is comparing it to its actual competition, and we're having to look for competition elsewhere.

But remember, if you ever want to shoot handheld even remotely seriously, you're going to need another system. Ok. Moving on...

So, because it's built around a digital back, and has no viewfinder, this camera is pretty much limited to shooting off a tripod. This is where the "first modern field camera" marketing speak of course comes in.

Let's think about another one of those checkboxes that Phase One set out to tick - the camera needs to be light, and small.

Well OK, but now we've established this camera only makes sense on a tripod, you're going to have to carry one of those around with you everywhere you go with it. All of a sudden, any perceived size and weight advantage over the tech-camera competition starts to fade. Oh sure, there is a significant size and weight advantage over the XF ecosystem, but the XF isn't the competition for this camera.

With regards to weight, the XT is 700g. But does it really have an advantage over the tech-cam competition?

If you're a landscape photographer and want to shift-stitch, the ALPA STC weighs 590g, so it's not going to win that one. And with the ALPA you get +/- 18mm of shift, which gives you the option for significantly wider panoramas at much higher resolution than the 12mm on the XT is ever going to give you.

But as we've already seen from the comments of many landscape photographers here, it is not possible to use tilt with the XT. So I would guess that for many (most?) landscape photographers, it's written off just because of that.

If you're an architectural photographer and want to lower the horizon, the ALPA SWA weighs 640g. And, crucially, you get 25mm of movement (if you need to raise the horizon, just mount the camera upside down).

Is there seriously an architectural photographer who can work with a camera that only has 12mm rise, or 12mm fall? If you're shooting portrait orientation, that doesn't even move the horizon to the bottom quarter of the frame.

Are we really that concerned about a couple of hundred grams in either direction when thinking about the weight of what we are carrying around on our backs? I don't think so.

For photographers who typically shoot off a tripod, the XT fails to deliver. You don't have enough rise/fall for architectural work, and you have no option to tilt for landscape. IF, it turns out it is possible to tilt by using an adapter and a manual lens, then you completely negate the only real benefits the XT brings to the table - integration of the back and lens and a shutter speed up to 1/1000th, so once again, the existence of the camera becomes pointless.

If you take a step back and look at how this camera is being marketed and justified, it's pretty much solely on the integration of the back, camera, and lens. This is of course a big deal for those of us used to "mirrorless" Phase One photography, but for anyone else out there? It's just going to be a big "meh. So what?".

But which landscape photographer is going to give up the ability to tilt, and restrict their ability to shift to only 12mm in either direction, in order to gain a two-stop faster shutter, and recording of EXIF data in the back?

Which architectural photographer is going restrict their ability to rise or fall to only 12mm, in order to gain the same benefits?

I can think of just a single photographic situation that the XT can deliver that no other MF system can.

23mm lens, with a requirement to use a shutter faster than 1/250th of a second with strobes.

So perhaps there's an interior architectural photographer somewhere out there for whom this makes sense (as long as (s)he doesn't need more than 12mm of movement in any direction).

But I can think of countless - very common - photographic situations where this camera is second best in every, single, scenario.

Do we really care so much about saving EXIF data into the RAW file and automating a little of the post processing work?

Hmm.
 
Top