Phase One XT Camera Revelations and Considerations

[RLB]

Wow they want $9000 for that old film-era 70mm Rodenstock?!!
it's one of the better film era Roddies, but it's still a very old design, not up to modern digital standards, let alone 150mp.
(Yes I have owned and used, 50, 60, 70,and 90mm Rod's)

Phase really should have had the clout to commission a special new Rodenstock lens.

And why not the 50mm f4? That's one of Rodenstock's best digital lenses.

I can attest that the 70mm Rode HR (Blue ring) is an excellent lens when used with the IQ4-150 after using it for the past 8 months. Some of the "legacy" lenses are quite happy with the IQ4 in terms of shifting and resolving. The 90mm Rode HR (Blue or Magenta ring as its the exact same lens according to Rodenstock) is also an excellent lens that I have tested extensively with the IQ4-150.

Consider that the IQ4 has a BSI sensor, which is far more forgiving compared to previous CMOS and CCD sensors that were FSI when shifting, and therefore there is less demands made of the lens in terms of color fringing (avoidance of such optically). Also consider that the 90mm Rode HR does NOT require a rear extension, is 30% smaller and lighter when compared to the new 90mm HR-SW and a pristine example is 1/4 the cost...assuming you can find one...I just sold an extra copy I had for $1,800. (unmounted). Point in case just because a view lens is not the latests design does not mean it is not a fantastic lens with the newest DB's.

R

 

[narikin]

I can attest that the 70mm Rode HR (Blue ring) is an excellent lens when used with the IQ4-150 after using it for the past 8 months. Some of the "legacy" lenses are quite happy with the IQ4 in terms of shifting and resolving. The 90mm Rode HR (Blue or Magenta ring as its the exact same lens according to Rodenstock) is also an excellent lens that I have tested extensively with the IQ4-150.

Consider that the IQ4 has a BSI sensor, which is far more forgiving compared to previous CMOS and CCD sensors that were FSI when shifting, and therefore there is less demands made of the lens in terms of color fringing (avoidance of such optically). Also consider that the 90mm Rode HR does NOT require a rear extension, is 30% smaller and lighter when compared to the new 90mm HR-SW and a pristine example is 1/4 the cost...assuming you can find one...I just sold an extra copy I had for $1,800. (unmounted). Point in case just because a view lens is not the latests design does not mean it is not a fantastic lens with the newest DB's.

R

What can I say? We clearly have different ideas of what 'sharp' means.

Rodenstock didn't just abandon the blue/magenta ring 90mm,and make an (all new design) Yellow band 90mm for the heck of it. They did it because of all the complaints about the Blue ring not being up to it.

I can't argue that the old 90mm lens isn't lighter and cheaper, but the rest I very much take issue with. And Rodenstock clearly agreed.

The 70mm is better, as many, including myself, have said. Not right up there, but much more acceptable.

As always, ymmv, and by all means use whatever works for you. We are all different in our needs.

 

[Geoff]

On an overall basis, the XT, back, and lens setup looks like a well-integrated and thoughtfully designed package, although some will be waiting for an extended lens lineup. Looking at this from another way, imagine different target audiences:

- the all-in pro, who wants the better integration, smaller size, and has the budget to get what they need, either in purchase or lease.
- the well-heeled who simply want the best, and aren't worried about the cost.
- the medium-heeled, who are able to work in the medium-format digital world, but have budget concerns.

For the first two groups, the fully integrated design can be attractive. However, for the last group, the news doesn't play well as older backs and lenses don't hook up. Maybe that gets fixed over time, but at the moment, the Hassy approach (bolt anything up to it at either end) or Alpa's modular arrangement are more favorable to older pieces of kit.

The design sets a new standard for integration and ease of use. One could imagine a day when the shutter is more widely available, and the IQ4 is at a different price point... then this all makes a lot more sense.

 

[RLB]

What can I say? We clearly have different ideas of what 'sharp' means.

Rodenstock didn't just abandon the blue/magenta ring 90mm,and make an (all new design) Yellow band 90mm for the heck of it. They did it because of all the complaints about the Blue ring not being up to it.

I can't argue that the old 90mm lens isn't lighter and cheaper, but the rest I very much take issue with. And Rodenstock clearly agreed.

The 70mm is better, as many, including myself, have said. Not right up there, but much more acceptable.

As always, ymmv, and by all means use whatever works for you. We are all different in our needs.

Mr. Narkin, sir, I sense you've been deeply hurt or let down by a Rode lens in your past. I feel your pain man, I really do.

Keep your chin up mate!


R

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I have always assumed the 90HR Yellow Band is a different lens than the 90HR Blue Band. I don’t know this for a fact, I’ve never asked Rodenstock about this particular lens. I assumed that given the larger size and the added weight, the 72mm vs 67mm filter thread, the 115mm vs 125mm stated image circle, that this was a new lens and a new formulation.

I haven’t tested and compared the two. But hard to see who it is the same lens, perhaps they mean same formulation, I don’t know. But something changed, and I expect for the better, I have had clients who purchased that were owners of the previous 90HR Blue Band.

And I’m all about legacy lenses. Remember, I’m the one that sent the Schneider Super Symmar 210/5.6 Lens to Cambo for WRS fitting after they told me I should not and I did anyway and made believers out of them (they made a post about underrated legacy lenses on their Facebook page as a result). The results from that lens exceeded the later released 120mm APO Digitar N (and approached but didn’t quite match the 120mm ASPH).

It is certainly possible to compare an average copy of a great lens to a superlative copy of a good lens and come away with unexpected conclusions. Definitive conclusions require more comparative testing. Ultimately what matters is that you're happy with the lenses you own. Robert happy with Blue. Narikan happy with yellow. There you go!


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[tcdeveau]

Thanks very much Steve and the CI team for the writeups!

I'll be sticking with my current kit but always nice to see more tech cam products/options out there

 

[RLB]

I have always assumed the 90HR Yellow Band is a different lens than the 90HR Blue Band. I don’t know this for a fact, I’ve never asked Rodenstock about this particular lens. I assumed that given the larger size and the added weight, the 72mm vs 67mm filter thread, the 115mm vs 125mm stated image circle, that this was a new lens and a new formulation.

I haven’t tested and compared the two. But hard to see who it is the same lens, perhaps they mean same formulation, I don’t know. But something changed, and I expect for the better, I have had clients who purchased that were owners of the previous 90HR Blue Band.

And I’m all about legacy lenses. Remember, I’m the one that sent the Schneider Super Symmar 210/5.6 Lens to Cambo for WRS fitting after they told me I should not and I did anyway and made believers out of them (they made a post about underrated legacy lenses on their Facebook page as a result). The results from that lens exceeded the later released 120mm APO Digitar N (and approached but didn’t quite match the 120mm ASPH).

It is certainly possible to compare an average copy of a great lens to a superlative copy of a good lens and come away with unexpected conclusions. Definitive conclusions require more comparative testing. Ultimately what matters is that you're happy with the lenses you own. Robert happy with Blue. Narikan happy with yellow. There you go!


Steve Hendrix/CI

From the research I've done specifically with the 90mm Rode's, I can attest to the following:

Rodenstock by their own admission (in their sales literature) states the 90mm Magenta band (HR-S) and the 90mm Blue band (HR-W) are indeed the exact same lens that they "rebranded" and felt it was unnecessary to redesign it as the "quality was already higher than the other Magenta band lenses" that they had at the time. Take note that this applies to both the 70mm and the 90mm. So what they are saying is that the magenta and blue ring 70mm and 90mm are the exact same lenses aside from color of ring.

Direct quote from a Rode sales brochure below:

"This new lens series (Blue band HR-W) comprises the focal lengths of 40 mm, 50 mm, 70 mm and 90 mm. The last mentioned two lenses are the renamed former Apo-Sironar digital 70 mmf/5.6 and Apo-Sironar digital 90 mm f/5.6 which both had already been calculated according to the much higher demands on freedom from aberrations for higher resolution with larger working apertures (reduced stopping down)".


The current 90mm Rode (yellow band) "HR-SW" is according to Rodenstock a "new" design. It's physically larger, heavier and requires a rear extension on a Tech camera, whereas the previous 90mm does not. All the 90mm lenses share the same image large circle: 120mm. Clearly, its apparent from the most basic inspection that the yellow band lens is a new design.

Other points of relevance: The quality of the lens itself (how precisely the optics are mounted at the factory; production tolerances), how accurate the collimation was in the mounting, etc, etc.

And finally what DB you are using: The IQ4 BSI sensor is far more forgiving when shifting and dealing with color fringing. This places less demand on the optics.

Bottom line as Steve states: the choice is yours the previous design or the current one. I prefer the previous for weight and size reduction, lack of need for a rear extension and price. If you choose otherwise, so be it. But be informed about sharpness in that my testing with the lenses I used showed no practical difference in "optical sharpness", where the newer lens shines is in shifting further without color fringing. Add an IQ4 with BSI sensor and color fringing is no longer an issue on either lens.

One last bit: I compared two copies of very clean 90mm HR's (Magenta ring) and after extensive testing for sharpness at center and edges concluded that there was no discernible differences between those two copies in terms of production tolerances. For $1,500. - $1,800. my money is on the previous generation.


Robert

 

[gerald.d]

Been pondering this, and I think - sadly - this is going to pretty much kill off demand for the ALPA TC, STC, and SWA.

The marginal (when looking at the total system price) increase in cost for the lenses and camera body of the XT are more than compensated for by the benefits it brings.

I'm not sure how "open" the platform is for using other lenses, but possibly will also significantly eat into the FPS market.



*edit
D'oh. No of course it won't - no shutter in the camera

Apologies to Steve for linking through to the other thread, but I think that's where most of the discussion is now going on.

I've been pondering some more, and actually completely retract what I say above.

Post here -

https://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium...mera-x-shutter-new-firmware-6.html#post799450

 

[Steve Hendrix]

As noted in multiple places, the finalized version of the XT firmware is now here. This firmware also has added some additional features and even some changes from the beta version previously in place. There are some important installation notes in the below link, please read in detail.

Phase One IQ4/XT Firmware Update Notes

** Note that for use on non-XT technical camera bodies (XF should be same as XT), the only hard button exposure control you have while in Live View is ISO. It has been stated elsewhere that exposure control includes aperture and shutter speed, but this is not the case. While we would expect shutter speed to make its way into the hard button control elements eventually for non-XT camera use (via Electronic Shutter), it doesn't make any sense that aperture would be listed, since there is no aperture control from the interface possible off of the XT.



I will say that after reviewing a lot of the commentary on the XT product, I am somewhat surprised and not surprised at the impressions. I am not surprised at the reaction to a technical camera (intended for landscape, among other things) that limits shift to 12mm and does not provide any tilt capability. But I am surprised at the dismissiveness toward the technology, in particular, the X Shutter itself.

Currently we are in a void for shutters. And Global Shutters are years and years away (7 years? 8 years?). Copal shutters are gone, production on the Sinar e250 shutter has been stalled for at least 8 months now with no word of starting back up. So we're left with the Aperture Mount, which has no shutter at all.

So my surprise is that no one seems to be giving much credit to a brand new, incredibly robust and precise shutter system that extends to 1/1000th of a second, and that can be completely operated from behind the camera. That has surprised me.

From a cost standpoint, yes these components are expensive, but not really much more expensive than standard technical cameras and lenses.

I do understand the lack of tilt and expansive movements being a non-starter for some. And if so, then this camera may not be for you. But I do also feel that the target for Phase One with this product was for a very small footprint camera system. At any rate, I am encouraged at the path that has been started with the XT.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[alistairsimmons]

As noted in multiple places, the finalized version of the XT firmware is now here. This firmware also has added some additional features and even some changes from the beta version previously in place. There are some important installation notes in the below link, please read in detail.

Phase One IQ4/XT Firmware Update Notes

** Note that for use on non-XT camera bodies, the only hard button exposure control you have while in Live View is ISO. It has been stated elsewhere that exposure control includes aperture and shutter speed, but this is not the case. While we would expect shutter speed to make its way into the hard button control elements eventually for non-XT camera use (via Electronic Shutter), it doesn't make any sense that aperture would be listed, since there is no aperture control from the interface possible off of the XT.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Just testing the new firmware, with IQ4 150MP on the XF, and I have hard-button control over all of the exposure parameters, not just ISO.

Assuming by 'non-XT bodies' you mean other non-Phase One bodies?

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Just testing the new firmware, with IQ4 150MP on the XF, and I have hard-button control over all of the exposure parameters, not just ISO. Same with LS, FPS and ES.

Hi Al - I meant for (non XT) technical cameras, like Alpa, Cambo, Arca Swiss. Behavior for XF and XT should be the same.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Steve Hendrix]

FYI - for now, we've updated our firmware recommendation to a "Proceed with Caution" rating (for tech camera users), due to Frame Averaging on tech camera being totally FUBAR. We have detailed some of the behavior that has prompted this warning.

https://captureintegration.com/released-xt-camera-system-firmware-6-00-52/


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[rsinclair]

Just testing the new firmware, with IQ4 150MP on the XF, and I have hard-button control over all of the exposure parameters, not just ISO.

Assuming by 'non-XT bodies' you mean other non-Phase One bodies?

Hello Al,

Phase One submitted a firmware update that updates the most recent prior version that allowed for Frame Averaging usage on tech camera bodies manufactured by other manufacturers; i.e., other than the XT, which, by the way, I have on order but have yet to receive. Before this update, I could use my IQ4 150 and its Frame Averaging on any of my 3 Arca-Swiss tech cameras. After this update, I cannot. I am happy for you that this firmware works as represented on your XF. Guess what? It works on mine too! What I did not expect is to lose functionality already provided for the "non-XT bodies", to quote you.

I am not one of those that expects all of the functionality the XT-IQ4 combo will provide, to non-XT bodies. I understand the underlying technology. But, as a Phase One customer of over 12 years, owner of 3 prior version backs, currently an owner of 2, and 1 more ordered with the XT, I have been extremely patient with Phase One's IQ4 entry into the market.

I've been photographing for over 50 years and the IQ4 150 is the best tool I've had, but for a company to release a version of its product that not only eliminates recently added and marketed functionality, but corrupted the use of its product, is pathetic. As a guy who's been successful enough in his own private businesses to afford several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment, I grasp how businesses NEED to run.

If Phase One intended to remove the Frame Averaging functionality for non-XT bodies, then it simply wouldn't allow (would have removed) for the Sigma to show up on the right side with a left swipe when an XT isn't attached. And guess what, that's ok by me because that would be a business decision on their part and likewise on mine. But it didn't have that intention. Instead, it released a firmware version that is broken. And that's just pathetic.

If I were one of the new private equity owners of this company, I would have already called a board meeting, have image captures of posts from relevant online forums, and have the CEO explain why we release broken versions of the firmware or, was it their intention, and if so, why?.

Does this help answer your question?

Cheers,
Robert

 

[Paul2660]

It would be a big mistake for Phase One to limit Frame Averaging only to the XT and XF.

Feature was announced almost a year ago without any mention of it only working with proprietary Phase cameras.

The fact is that it appears to be broken on the XF also.

Amazing this again was not caught in testing.

Paul C

 

[Steve Hendrix]

It would be a big mistake for Phase One to limit Frame Averaging only to the XT and XF.

Feature was announced almost a year ago without any mention of it only working with proprietary Phase cameras.

The fact is that it appears to be broken on the XF also.

Amazing this again was not caught in testing.

Paul C

I don't expect that this is the case, especially since it was already in operation on existing tech cameras before this recent firmware edition.

No I think this is just a case where the firmware QC process for Phase one seems broken. Almost as if there is a limited mindset to what needs to be tested. In this case, they were preparing final firmware that brought an official non beta version of firmware for compatibility the XT. But there were also some additional features added.

However, with software/firmware, because you make one thing work well in one circumstance does not mean that because it worked well in a different circumstance in the past, that this has not changed somehow. Now they are making digital backs for XF, Tech Cameras, and XT. Every operation for every contingency needs to be re-confirmed. It feels like they are making some assumptions in their QC process, and this is the result when that happens.

I don't think they're understaffed. I think they are underestimating the complexity of this product with the amount of computational capability it possesses. Increase the capability, increase the complexity. And they cannot rely on the same sort of process they have in the past with a P+ or IQ1 level product. The product has changed dramatically and they need to re-think their process. I'm surprised that their approach to the firmware QC process has not been corrected by now.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Christopher]

I think they are embarrassingly incompetent... for god sake we are talking about a 50-100k investment....

 

[buildbot]

I think they are embarrassingly incompetent... for god sake we are talking about a 50-100k investment....

It would be like Tesla pushing an update that disabled self driving... Same level of cost.

 

[vjbelle]

I don't expect that this is the case, especially since it was already in operation on existing tech cameras before this recent firmware edition.

No I think this is just a case where the firmware QC process for Phase one seems broken. Almost as if there is a limited mindset to what needs to be tested. In this case, they were preparing final firmware that brought an official non beta version of firmware for compatibility the XT. But there were also some additional features added.

However, with software/firmware, because you make one thing work well in one circumstance does not mean that because it worked well in a different circumstance in the past, that this has not changed somehow. Now they are making digital backs for XF, Tech Cameras, and XT. Every operation for every contingency needs to be re-confirmed. It feels like they are making some assumptions in their QC process, and this is the result when that happens.

I don't think they're understaffed. I think they are underestimating the complexity of this product with the amount of computational capability it possesses. Increase the capability, increase the complexity. And they cannot rely on the same sort of process they have in the past with a P+ or IQ1 level product. The product has changed dramatically and they need to re-think their process. I'm surprised that their approach to the firmware QC process has not been corrected by now.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Steve...... the actual testing isn't rocket science. You are making it sound as this is so difficult to test that it's just beyond all of those sparkies at Phase. None of us here, AFAIK, are software engineers and yet in the time frame of just minutes it was discovered that a lot of features either don't work at all or not as intended.

All Phase had to do was find anyone who can attach the DB to all of the known platforms and see if it actually works.

It's not rocket science to perform that simple test.

All of this from my point of view is beyond incompetence and indefensible.

Victor

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve...... the actual testing isn't rocket science. You are making it sound as this is so difficult to test that it's just beyond all of those sparkies at Phase. None of us here, AFAIK, are software engineers and yet in the time frame of just minutes it was discovered that a lot of features either don't work at all or not as intended.

All Phase had to do was find anyone who can attach the DB to all of the known platforms and see if it actually works.

It's not rocket science to perform that simple test.

All of this from my point of view is beyond incompetence and indefensible.

Victor

Hi Victor, my post may have come across that way to you, but that is not how I intended it to be interpreted.

The product itself is more complex. More and more like a powerful computer with more and more capabilities.

The testing itself is not complex. The process of testing for something like this is not difficult or complicated. It simply must be comprehensive. There has to be a standard template of what operations to drill on and in what circumstances (which camera, which lens, which operation, etc.), and this should happen every single time.

Just because the firmware is being prepped for the XT, doesn't mean you do not have to then also test all the same things you tested last time for the XF, tech cameras, etc. This is not difficult, it just feels like they are winging it each time and the process is broken. The process has to be consistent, otherwise, assumptions get made and the result is things don't work.

Making one set of operations work flawlessly does not happen in a vacuum. What goes up can go down elsewhere. What is good here, can then - for whatever reason - not be good there. That is why everything has to be tested every time. This is clearly not happening.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[buildbot]

Steve...... the actual testing isn't rocket science. You are making it sound as this is so difficult to test that it's just beyond all of those sparkies at Phase. None of us here, AFAIK, are software engineers and yet in the time frame of just minutes it was discovered that a lot of features either don't work at all or not as intended.

All Phase had to do was find anyone who can attach the DB to all of the known platforms and see if it actually works.

It's not rocket science to perform that simple test.

All of this from my point of view is beyond incompetence and indefensible.

Victor

I am for what it's worth, and when doing hardware, you should have tests for _everything_
We have tools that show if a line of code is tested or not, and you aim for 100% coverage, and that's just the start.