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)

tjv

Active member
Am I right in thinking that the XT doesn't do shift and rise / fall simultainously too, like I can do with my Linhof Techno or Alpa MAX / Plus offeres, etc? E.g. lateral shift OR rise / fall? Did you mention this, or am I wrong on this point?

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.
 

Christopher

Active member
Am I right in thinking that the XT doesn't do shift and rise / fall simultainously too, like I can do with my Linhof Techno or Alpa MAX / Plus offeres, etc? E.g. lateral shift OR rise / fall? Did you mention this, or am I wrong on this point?
As far as I know it can do both at the same time.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Am I right in thinking that the XT doesn't do shift and rise / fall simultainously too, like I can do with my Linhof Techno or Alpa MAX / Plus offeres, etc? E.g. lateral shift OR rise / fall? Did you mention this, or am I wrong on this point?
I'm pretty sure you can simultaneously use rise/fall and shift. It's hard to think of a mechanism where shifting in one dimension would somehow block shifting in the other.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 

tjv

Active member
Thanks. I’m not sure why I thought it couldn’t move on each axis simultaneously. I thought it was like the Alpa STC, where it could only do one or the other depending on orientation.

Looks like a nice system, but limited. And crazy expensive, really. Makes what I paid for my gear look like chump change.

I'm pretty sure you can simultaneously use rise/fall and shift. It's hard to think of a mechanism where shifting in one dimension would somehow block shifting in the other.

Kind regards,

Gerald.
 

jagsiva

Active member
Yup, the XT is an answer to a question nobody asked. If they were trying to bring out the best tech cam, it needed x/y axes +/- 20mm, tilt/swing and all the electrical integration would have been a welcomed addition -- but, I certainly would not give up core tech cam capability like tilt or +12mm shifts for the convenience of better electronic integration. Same for the lenses. I get the same quality for substantially less, but more importantly, less issues for failures (this is my opinion and experience).

Phase needs a proper mirrorless response, and that needs to be an integrated body/back. This IQ brick is simply not going to cut it. But looking back, Phase has a habit of throwing something out there half backed to buy time .... DF+, IQ2, Media Pro.....so hopefully there is a proper mirrorless body coming soon.


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....
 

Christopher

Active member
I don’t get the obsession with a Phase mirrorless body. I honestly think it won’t come and certainly not in the next few years.

And honestly why do we want one?!? To pay 20k for the body? 8k per lens? If you need mirrorless get a GFX100 (as I have) and don’t waist time waiting for Phase to do something. The GFX is an amazing tool and the lenses better then most Phase stuff.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I would just again note that when listing/comparing the weight/size/price of various tech/field camera options that the XT comes with the adapter plate, dovetail, and grip. These can add meaningful weight/size/cost to other cameras whose default listings often exclude these. Of course, as regards other cameras not every user will choose to add a grip or dovetail (though every user will need to add an adapter plate). In the case of the XT the dovetail/mount is removable (and reduces the weight slightly in so doing).

Some might say "you're talking about a couple hundred grams" or "you're going to be carrying a lot of other stuff like a tripod" but every gram is important when you're backpacking miles to a location starting before dawn, even more so when parts of your kit (like the tripod) are relatively fixed (that is, once you've found the lightest tripod that meets your needs, its unlikely you can cut that weight further other than simply not packing a tripod, which many shooters would be reticent to do no matter the camera they are taking).

As regards hand held shooting it all depends on what you're comparing to:
- In the world of tech cameras, the XT does very well hand held. It's small and light (as a benchmark that is easy to relate to it is smaller and lighter than a GFX100 depending on the lens for each), it has a very-low-vibration leaf shutter so you don't need to worry about rolling shutter from using a sensor-based shutter (ES) and since you don't have to manually adjust the aperture, shutter speed, or cock the shutter or wakeup the back between captures (and can capture from within live view; again, without worrying about rolling shutter) and it has a built in shutter on the grip. [note to any who might misinterpret this post; I'm not saying every one of these is exclusively a feature of the XT]. The ISO range of the IQ4 is also pretty tremendous.
- In the world of more general-purpose cameras, the XT does poorly hand held. There is no autofocus or dedicated EVF which are both of tremendous (and obvious) value to hand held shooting, and has no IS.

However, it is absolutely the case that the main use-case that the XT is designed for is tripod-based shooting. That doesn't meant you can't do other things with it (I personally rather enjoyed shooting the XT hand held the few times I've done it so far), but it does mean they are lower in priority. This is most certainly not a general-purpose do-everything camera. It is not a Swiss Army knife.
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I don’t get the obsession with a Phase mirrorless body. I honestly think it won’t come and certainly not in the next few years.

And honestly why do we want one?!? To pay 20k for the body? 8k per lens? If you need mirrorless get a GFX100 (as I have) and don’t waist time waiting for Phase to do something. The GFX is an amazing tool and the lenses better then most Phase stuff.
I would tend to agree.

The GFX and X1D series do a very good job of addressing their blend of priorities/pros/cons.

I do not expect P1 to produce a me-too version of those cameras (at least in the foreseeable future).
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Interesting that we go back to the purpose of this camera, and its true reason for existing - as Phase One’s mirrorless medium format camera - by comparing to the Fuji GFX 100, and stressing the advantages that the former has over the latter as a hand held camera being -

Smaller and lighter
Has a low vibration leaf shutter (like that’s going to be relevant in hand held scenarios when comparing to the GFX, but more in that in a moment)
And a good ISO range.

Did I miss anything? I think that was it.

And the GFX 100?

Auto focus.
5.5 stops of IBIS.

Five. Point. Five. Stops. Of IBIS.

I struggle to believe that there is a photographer on the planet that would buy an XT over an GFX 100 for handheld photography.

But if there is a photographer (without a vested interest in selling either option) here who would do that, I’m all ears.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I struggle to believe that there is a photographer on the planet that would buy an XT over an GFX 100 for handheld photography.
With the obvious caveats that the world is a big place and some people are quirky to the bones (and therefore there might be an oddball exception here and there) I fully agree with your overall sentiment here: if your exclusive or main use case is handheld photography then the XT is almost surely not for you. I don't see anyone arguing to the contrary.

Note that the weight and size of a camera is still relevant even if handheld photography is not your main use case... you still have to schlep the camera to and from a given location, and pack it in your travel bag.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
With the obvious caveats that the world is a big place and some people are quirky to the bones I fully agree with your overall sentiment here. I don't see anyone arguing to the contrary.

If your exclusive or main use case is handheld photography then the XT is almost surely not for you.
Then why, in your post, posit the benefits the XT has over the GFX when it comes to handheld photography?

And I wouldn’t even put it at “main use case”. If just 10% of what you shoot is handheld, you’re going to need another system.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Then why, in your post, posit the benefits the XT has over the GFX when it comes to handheld photography?
I would encourage you to re-read the post. The post lists two points of comparisons: Tech Cameras and "more general purpose cameras". It quite clearly states that the XT is well suited to hand held photography when compared within the world of tech cameras, and not as well suited to hand held photography as a general purpose camera.

I've edited the post, adding parentheses around the GFX weight/size comparison to make sure the meaning is even more clear.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I would encourage you to re-read the post. The post lists two points of comparisons: Tech Cameras and "general purpose cameras". It quite clearly states that the XT is well suited to hand held photography when compared within the world of tech cameras, and not as well suited to hand held photography as a general purpose camera.

I've edited the post, adding parentheses around the weight/size comparison to the GFX make sure the meaning is even more clear.
I read the post very carefully. And responded to it very carefully.

Here is what you said.

- In the world of tech cameras, the XT does very well hand held. It's smaller and lighter than a GFX depending on the lens for each has a very-low-vibration leaf shutter so you don't need to worry about rolling shutter from using a sensor-based shutter (ES) and since you don't have to manually adjust the aperture, shutter speed, or cock the shutter or wakeup the back between captures (and can capture from within live view; again, without worrying about rolling shutter) and it has a built in shutter on the grip. [note to any who might misinterpret this post; I'm not saying every one of these is exclusively a feature of the XT]. The ISO range of the IQ4 is also pretty tremendous.
I have bolded the single sentence that is clearly addressing the (claimed) advantages the XT has over the GFX.

Gotta be honest. Can’t help thinking that you don’t actually mean to be talking about the GFX at this point.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Looks like you’ve now edited your post for (I think now?) the fourth time.

Maybe I should wait for a while before replying to a post. Give it some time to settle?
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Yup, the XT is an answer to a question nobody asked. If they were trying to bring out the best tech cam, it needed x/y axes +/- 20mm, tilt/swing and all the electrical integration would have been a welcomed addition -- but, I certainly would not give up core tech cam capability like tilt or +12mm shifts for the convenience of better electronic integration. Same for the lenses. I get the same quality for substantially less, but more importantly, less issues for failures (this is my opinion and experience).

Phase needs a proper mirrorless response, and that needs to be an integrated body/back. This IQ brick is simply not going to cut it. But looking back, Phase has a habit of throwing something out there half backed to buy time .... DF+, IQ2, Media Pro.....so hopefully there is a proper mirrorless body coming soon.
It wasn't until I was in my mid-to-late 40s when I finally realized that if a product -- any product -- makes absolutely no sense to me, then I am probably not a member of the demographic group the manufacturer is targeting.

My Porsche has a manual transmission and I have zero interest in owning one that has an automatic or semi-automatic transmission, even if they will make the car quicker around a racetrack and otherwise perform better overall, including holding its value better when the time comes to sell it.

Similarly, I have zero interest in owning an XT outfit. I don't need or want the integration it offers and especially not when it comes with a premium price attached. (I have also bailed on medium-format digital, too, because it ultimately proved to be the wrong tool for the type of photography I do, but that's a different matter.)

But I have to think Phase One isn't stupid and already knows this. They also know that as an old-fart-in-training, my camera-buying years are coming to a close, so if they want to continue to grow and prosper, it's time for them to start targeting a new group of photographers who have more purchases left in them than I do.

To my mind, the XT is not intended to appeal to the owners of existing P1 backs and cameras, but to serve as an upgrade path for the more well-heeled members of the 33x44 crowd (which P1 recently abandoned) looking for the next great thing. Sure, it's great if existing P1 customers buy into it as well, but I suspect that in another decade, maybe two, most of today's P1 customers will be dead. Or if not actually dead, then effectively dead, because they won't be spending any more money on camera gear.

And if by that time P1 hasn't repositioned its product line to appeal to the next group of photographers coming up behind them, then P1 will be dead, too.

So while you may not need or want the integration the XT offers, there are many younger photographers coming up today who have zero interest in any camera that doesn't have it. Or increased levels of automation. Or in-camera computational photography. Or whatever else someone who is as generally clueless as I am about what appeals to 20-to 30-year-olds isn't even aware of...

For better and worse, the XT is the future ... or at least P1 is hoping it will be. Their primary audience for it is not the aging getDPI crowd who are bristling at its implications and/or price, but younger, well-heeled photographers who have never heard of this forum and will be outgrowing their GFX 100 in a few more years and looking to upgrade to something that's even better, if only by reputation and not actual performance. (Millenials may not have much money available to spend on their "toys" today, but many of them will eventually inherit from their parents and grandparents, so this is likely to change in time.)

Yes, it absolutely sucks to be left out and/or politely eased aside, but this is my -- our? -- generation's fate and it's pointless to resist. Better to carry on doing your thing and derive as much enjoyment from it for as long as you can than to piss-and-moan about a camera that was designed to appeal to someone else...

Than again, what do I know? <shrug>
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Looks like you’ve now edited your post for (I think now?) the fourth time.

Maybe I should wait for a while before replying to a post. Give it some time to settle?
I made a post that compares the hand-hold-ability of an XT to other tech cameras (where compares well) and more general-purpose cameras (where it does not compare well). I included in that post the fact that general-purpose cameras have AF and IS, neither of which are present in the XT.

Your reading of that post was that I was saying the exact opposite (that I was saying the XT compares well to the GFX for hand held shooting) and pointed out the GFX has AF and IS (which again, I pointed out in my post). I strongly suspect you were unique in misreading it that way, but I nevertheless edited the post for additional clarity (and noted the edit when replying to yours).
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
I made a post that compares the hand-hold-ability of an XT to other tech cameras (where compares well) and more general-purpose cameras (where it does not compare well). I included in that post the fact that general-purpose cameras have AF and IS, neither of which are present in the XT.

Your reading of that post was that I was saying the exact opposite (that I was saying the XT compares well to the GFX for hand held shooting) and pointed out the GFX has AF and IS (which again, I pointed out in my post). I strongly suspect you are unique in misreading it that way, but rather than bicker about commas and clauses I edited the post for additional clarity (and noted the edit when replying to yours).
Well pardon me for reading a sentence and then responding to it.

My reading of your post was exactly what I quoted, because that is exactly what you wrote.

Of course I will be unique in reading it that way when you go back and edit it after reading my response.

“Bickering about commas and clauses”.

Here we go with the ad hominems again.

I’m taking screenshots. So don’t think you will get away with your ex post facto edits.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
well pardon me for reading a sentence and then responding to it.

My reading of your post was exactly what i quoted, because that is exactly what you wrote.

Of course i will be unique in reading it that way when you go back and edit it after reading my response.

“bickering about commas and clauses”.

Here we go with the ad hominems again.

I’m taking screenshots. So don’t think you will get away with your ex post facto edits.
lol
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
Aaaand I think that’s ends the debate on the XT making sense as a handheld system.

I look forward to the debate that it makes sense as an ecosystem for people who shoot on tripods.

Which one first?

Shall we discuss the landscape photographer, who is limited to +/- 12mm of lateral shift, with no tilt?

(But gets that wonderful integration as compensation.)

Or the architectural photographer, who is limited to +/- 12mm of rise/fall?

(But gets that wonderful integration, and the ability to shoot leaf shutter at 1/500 and 1/1000?)

I’ll wait 12 hours before responding to any claim of the XT’s superlative performance in either of these genres.
 
Top