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)

vjbelle

Well-known member
First of all this is a great thread!! One of my frustrations with this new camera and lenses is the 'Lenes. I don't get why the 23mm is in there - very esoteric from MPOV. The 32mm is very heavy and very expensive. So why not have started with the 40mm, 70mm, 90mm, or 32mm, 50mm, 90mm?? Phase could have done whatever they wanted..... I just don't get the current lineup.

Victor
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
First of all this is a great thread!! One of my frustrations with this new camera and lenses is the 'Lenes. I don't get why the 23mm is in there - very esoteric from MPOV. The 32mm is very heavy and very expensive. So why not have started with the 40mm, 70mm, 90mm, or 32mm, 50mm, 90mm?? Phase could have done whatever they wanted..... I just don't get the current lineup.
I think there's a reasonable argument for either of your combinations and I think there's a reasonable argument for the way they went. The 32HR is large and heavy (and in a Copal mount is also somewhat vulnerable to misalignment due to the large front element; should not be a problem in the X-Shutter mount) but it is definitely the lens we (DT) have sold the most of over the years. It is really a superlative lens.

In any case, this is just the first three lenses. You can provide feedback on which you think should be next here: https://phaseonext.com/category/feedback/ The feedback so far has followed less of a trend than I would have expected which just goes to show you there is no lens combination that is right for everyone.

Personally (and this is just for me personally; I am not hinting at or implying this will be the case) I think the next Rodenstock HR lenses should be the 50HR, followed by the 90HR, followed by something long. But if you had asked me yesterday the answer might have been different and if you ask me tomorrow it might change again. The honest truth is I want them ALL and I want them NOW! ;)
 

TheDude

Member
Feel that the XT is more a solution (electronic shutter and aperture since Copal shutters are no longer being available) in search of a real need/want.

I think, the XT is something that can be "sold" perhaps to the not too well-informed or "avant-garde" type of person, but may not something that is "bought" by the well-informed (unless at a deep discount).

No tilt and no automatic focus stacking could be a real deal-breaker for many.

MN

Disclaimer: Fan of technical cameras, P1 digital backs, and Digaron lenses (but just not this combination).
 
Last edited:

TheDude

Member
The 32HR is large and heavy (and in a Copal mount is also somewhat vulnerable to misalignment due to the large front element; should not be a problem in the X-Shutter mount) but it is definitely the lens we (DT) have sold the most of over the years. It is really a superlative lens.
Hope not to go too much off-topic, the Digaron-S 35mm may also be a quite suitable lens. (The "A-series" was offered with Digaron-S 23mm, Digaron-S 35mm (not Digaron-W 32mm), and Digaron-W 70mm.)

Do you have any actual experience how much useful movement there is with the Digaron-S 35mm for the "645" size sensor?

Thanks

MN
 

Christopher

Active member
The reason for the 23 is simple. It’s the only option Phase has as they failed to produce a good 28 or wider in the last 5 years.... they have said something wider than 35 forever and can’t produce it. So now they have a ultra wide with the 23.
 
I love this post, mostly because I am that “one situation” you’ve detailed. In face last week I had an interiors shoot in which I was using my 23mm, rm3di, 4150, and some B1s, and was wishing for some real sync. Hahaha, you nailed it. However, that situation comes up rarely, and like you’ve said, the XTs value proposition doesn’t outweigh its costs. For my purposes it does less and costs more.

To further the praise of your prescience, I also love handheld shooting with the rm3di, whose lack of a grip and integrated shutter button make it a certain bit of trouble. I am THE (existing owner) candidate for this XT. Yet on reveal day, when my rep texted me first thing in the morning. I looked at the price and the specs and took a hard pass.

If Phase would come out with a 23 or wider for the XF, it’d take care of that last issue for me. I mostly use the 4150 to shoot wide and crop because my clients use these photos in every damn way imaginable.

Truthfully, the 4150 has been the first piece of Phase gear I feel really delivers. Despite firmware issues, and abysmal battery life, I can use it in the vast majority of situations. Also being one of the very early owners of the 4150 would make me wary of being an early adopter of a new system of theirs. The promises have grown long in the tooth, any address of real user concerns has been opaque at best. But like another gentleman in here said, if I’m not understanding the point of the product, I’m not the target market.

If Phase wants to sell me something, sell me a wireless ES remote, a 23mm BR lens, a PL mount, a half size/weight 4150, reliable ES flash sync, a faster readout 16IIQEX, a battery with twice the capacity, point AF, a real CA slider in C1. I’ll buy any of that. I’ve got a ton more. In fact if someone wants a separate wish list thread. I’m game.

Anyhow, Gerald, lovely post, I had a good laugh at being the sole target market.

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.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
If Phase wants to sell me something, sell me a wireless ES remote, a 23mm BR lens, a PL mount, a half size/weight 4150, reliable ES flash sync, a faster readout 16IIQEX, a battery with twice the capacity, point AF, a real CA slider in C1. I’ll buy any of that. I’ve got a ton more. In fact if someone wants a separate wish list thread. I’m game.
:thumbs: Ditto. Loving the brief experience I’ve had with the 150mp images and I’d buy a super wide BR lens if that option existed ... or for me perhaps nix the XF and go XT although I’d need 150/240mm+ long lens options.

If only my XF system and associated lenses were sellable for better than pennies on the dollar - i.e. worth more to sell vs just keep forever. :cry:
 

Mexecutioner

Well-known member
:thumbs: Ditto. Loving the brief experience I’ve had with the 150mp images and I’d buy a super wide BR lens if that option existed ... or for me perhaps nix the XF and go XT although I’d need 150/240mm+ long lens options.

If only my XF system and associated lenses were sellable for better than pennies on the dollar - i.e. worth more to sell vs just keep forever. :cry:
I wonder what trade in value dealers will offer for the XF and BR lenses towards an XT / lenses a few months from now once the just starts to settle. Hopefully it would be better than selling to a private party.
 

Christopher

Active member
I wonder what trade in value dealers will offer for the XF and BR lenses towards an XT / lenses a few months from now once the just starts to settle. Hopefully it would be better than selling to a private party.
Certainly not. My guess for a 35BR lens is privately around 3-4K trade in around 2k.
 

RLB

Member
Certainly not. My guess for a 35BR lens is privately around 3-4K trade in around 2k.
Recently picked up a used mint 35mm BR for $3,500. I thought that was a great price. Dealers selling "certified" version of the lens for $4,900., new $6,800.

R
 

pinktank

New member
Since we are in the tech camera realm now, question in making it into a view camera of sorts:
How is the HDMI output in the last firmware?
Can one review last-shot images, does focus peaking work?
Can I use the new sync cable with the touch the screen shutter to wake-up mode (in other tech cameras).
It was all a bit iffy in earlier releases.

*another thread suggests that there is still no way to 'playback' to HDMI out. Some of the missing "features" on the iq4 are just mind boggling. Do you all know if there is an eta on this? I know they are working on mobile solutions but this seems quite the gap in HDMI functionality.

best,
d
 

Mexecutioner

Well-known member
Recently picked up a used mint 35mm BR for $3,500. I thought that was a great price. Dealers selling "certified" version of the lens for $4,900., new $6,800.

R
I figured that would be the case. I recently bought a mint 120BR and a 40-80BR and got really good deals on them from private parties. Lenses are pretty much brand new and saved a bit over $7K for both (from brand new list prices), so as Graham said, it is probably something that is worth keeping forever, or until they crap out.
 

Christopher

Active member
It’s no news that the current used market for Phase One is crap. Everyone should know it! There is no value left. Way to many offers and not enough buyers. People are getting out and switching to Fuji. If your are a little patient you can pick up a IQ 3100 for under 15k!... it’s a back that was over 40k...

Don’t get me wrong I love my Phase One stuff and it all made money for me, but don’t buy anything Phase one sales and expect it to keep real value....
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
No kidding. I remember when they wanted $25K PLUS my IQ180 to upgrade to the IQ3100. The only Phase back I'd ever buy is a used one.

It’s no news that the current used market for Phase One is crap. Everyone should know it! There is no value left. Way to many offers and not enough buyers. People are getting out and switching to Fuji. If your are a little patient you can pick up a IQ 3100 for under 15k!... it’s a back that was over 40k...

Don’t get me wrong I love my Phase One stuff and it all made money for me, but don’t buy anything Phase one sales and expect it to keep real value....
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Since we are in the tech camera realm now, question in making it into a view camera of sorts:
How is the HDMI output in the last firmware?
Can one review last-shot images, does focus peaking work?
Can I use the new sync cable with the touch the screen shutter to wake-up mode (in other tech cameras).
It was all a bit iffy in earlier releases.

*another thread suggests that there is still no way to 'playback' to HDMI out. Some of the missing "features" on the iq4 are just mind boggling. Do you all know if there is an eta on this? I know they are working on mobile solutions but this seems quite the gap in HDMI functionality.

best,
d

The 3100 never had HDMI for image review/output, so I don't figure the IQ4 all either. It's a huge over sight and IMO should be part of the design as I am sure I will hear that due to the "nature of design" HDMI output for image review can't be done. As I have stated many times it's a common feature on other cameras that have HDMI output, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. So far the only real IMPROVEMENT with HDMI over the 3100 is that with the small blue arrows on the back's LCD you can now move around the external monitor when the Live View image is zoomed to 100%, which was not possible on 3100 (should have been).

You can either wake up the back via touch screen or two part cable as there is no zero latency, (and probably never will be, see post in this thread).

For me in regards to the XT, the fact that photographer is tied to the IQ4 LCD for all work is very limiting. I quickly gave up trying to hand hold Live View on the 3100, it's impossible to focus as any movement at all blurs the Live View. AF with XF could be easily done hand held within certain shutter speeds. The LCD is now dated when compared to more modern screens and as pointed out the HDMI support is only for Live View. I guess you could attach a screen like the Atomos to the flash bracket.

With the XT, no AF, so you are MF only, relying on Live View on a tiny screen where you will have to be on a tripod to really make sure you are in focus, and if a EVF module was available it would just mirror the issues so MF would still be difficult, next to impossible without a tripod. Once you have focus set, you could move off tripod and hand hold, but that's a bit cumbersome to me.

Paul C
 
To further the point about relying on live view for all focusing. Most of the time I’m between 8-11 and I have front to back focus, and I know my hyperfocal, so I usually set it and forget it.

If the XT is going to be used in any dynamic sort of situation and you are constantly checking liveview - any weight you’ve saved in the body you’ve doubled in the batteries you’ll have to carry. Live view being on is like watching the gas gauge after someone cut the fuel lines.

If the XT is the preamble to a bunch of accessory/firmware/QoL/etc. upgrades for the 4150, then hooray for everyone.



The 3100 never had HDMI for image review/output, so I don't figure the IQ4 all either. It's a huge over sight and IMO should be part of the design as I am sure I will hear that due to the "nature of design" HDMI output for image review can't be done. As I have stated many times it's a common feature on other cameras that have HDMI output, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, etc. So far the only real IMPROVEMENT with HDMI over the 3100 is that with the small blue arrows on the back's LCD you can now move around the external monitor when the Live View image is zoomed to 100%, which was not possible on 3100 (should have been).

You can either wake up the back via touch screen or two part cable as there is no zero latency, (and probably never will be, see post in this thread).

For me in regards to the XT, the fact that photographer is tied to the IQ4 LCD for all work is very limiting. I quickly gave up trying to hand hold Live View on the 3100, it's impossible to focus as any movement at all blurs the Live View. AF with XF could be easily done hand held within certain shutter speeds. The LCD is now dated when compared to more modern screens and as pointed out the HDMI support is only for Live View. I guess you could attach a screen like the Atomos to the flash bracket.

With the XT, no AF, so you are MF only, relying on Live View on a tiny screen where you will have to be on a tripod to really make sure you are in focus, and if a EVF module was available it would just mirror the issues so MF would still be difficult, next to impossible without a tripod. Once you have focus set, you could move off tripod and hand hold, but that's a bit cumbersome to me.

Paul C
 

Mexecutioner

Well-known member
It’s no news that the current used market for Phase One is crap. Everyone should know it! There is no value left. Way to many offers and not enough buyers. People are getting out and switching to Fuji. If your are a little patient you can pick up a IQ 3100 for under 15k!... it’s a back that was over 40k...

Don’t get me wrong I love my Phase One stuff and it all made money for me, but don’t buy anything Phase one sales and expect it to keep real value....
Is the same with all other gear, but more dramatic with Phase as it is costs more money. If wanted to retain value I would buy real estate or collectible cars. It is what it is and I choose not to find it way to annoying.
 

HavellPhoto

New member
At this juncture in the discussion it probably makes sense to state this:

If the XT had 20mm movements in every direction, and had the capability to tilt, it would make for a very attractive and compelling solution.
Yes very true, but it doesn't. Why would I, as a built environment and landscape photographer be interested in a technical camera solution that doesn't have tilt and is very limited in movements? It just doesn't make sense. The sexy new features mean nothing if the most important functionality is underwhelming.
 

Christopher

Active member
Is the same with all other gear, but more dramatic with Phase as it is costs more money. If wanted to retain value I would buy real estate or collectible cars. It is what it is and I choose not to find it way to annoying.
As I said I don’t mind it as it does a great job. I just think it’s getting to sell new XF lenses at 5k+ If you can pick them up used for a lot less. Especially as their still is quite a sample variation.

Back to the topic. The XT might not be perfect, but it looks like it’s fun to use. So I am excited try it out. At the end of the day a camera has to add value / make money for me as a business.
 

HavellPhoto

New member
At this juncture in the discussion it probably makes sense to state this:

If the XT had 20mm movements in every direction, and had the capability to tilt, it would make for a very attractive and compelling solution.
Yes that's true. In terms of serious technical camera functionality, the XT's lack of movements and no tilt just doesn't stack up for me as a landscape and built environment photographer. I don't particularly care about new features if the most important functions are inadequate to do the job properly.
 
Top