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.