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 Camera Revelations and Considerations

Paul2660

Well-known member
Steve,

Just glad CI posted the update to your blog post on the firmware, as I was ready to install it, but went back to read over the feature/process once again and saw the update about FA on tech cameras.

Paul C
 

vjbelle

Well-known member
Steve..... another concern I have is that Phase is putting major eggs into the XT at the expense of leaving Tech camera users behind. IMO that would be a major mistake.

Victor
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
Steve..... another concern I have is that Phase is putting major eggs into the XT at the expense of leaving Tech camera users behind. IMO that would be a major mistake.

Victor

I agree this would be a mistake. As such, I don't feel their specific intent moving forward is to kill other tech camera options. The majority of the profit from hardware for Phase One is selling digital backs. It doesn't matter which camera they go on, if they don't sell enough digital backs. They will certainly be able to add features for the XT that are not available for non XT tech cameras. But they would be wise to not limit those features which would port easily to non XT tech cameras. That would be a disaster. I am cautiously confident that they realize this.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

alajuela

Active member
I agree this would be a mistake. As such, I don't feel their specific intent moving forward is to kill other tech camera options. The majority of the profit from hardware for Phase One is selling digital backs. It doesn't matter which camera they go on, if they don't sell enough digital backs. They will certainly be able to add features for the XT that are not available for non XT tech cameras. But they would be wise to not limit those features which would port easily to non XT tech cameras. That would be a disaster. I am cautiously confident that they realize this.


Steve Hendrix/CI
I gotta agree with Steve, this would not be logical. As a XF and Tech camera user, I preordered an XT as initially I wanted to upgrade to the Cambo 1600 to be able to rotate the back, the XT looked like the future and knowing my Cambo lenses (5 of them) would not be obsolete, I ordered the XT with the 32mm (now that it is not so delicate in the helical / Copal mount). How can they intentionally betray users of XF and Cambo after collaborating with Cambo in the frame? Surely the XT will have more features, but should be because of communication between the newly mounted lenses and the IQ4 and should be the same on the XF and blue ring lenses. Do they expect people to own two IQ4s one with old software for the XF and tech camera frames and the other for the XT? They gotta be drinking / smoking something I don't have.

The most concerning part of this is twofold, one which been explained by many members, "how did this get out" .

AND - Where is Phase One in all this? Nothing on their Web Site owning up to this fiasco. Do the expect their vendors to be up all night trying to calm things down - and no word from them? This is troubling. Nobody under any circumstance anywhere likes being taken for granted, left feeling bewildered and taken advantage of. I have met the Phase people several times, they were always helpful, knowable and appreciative of their customers.

I respect and value my vendor (going on 10 years) and treat them like a friend, that my way of doing business, so I repeat where is Phase in all this -- they made mess they should clean it up. Not take advantage of their vendors / customers.

PS -Phase people can speak (and write) in English

Sorry for the rant
 
Last edited:

Massive Si

Active member
... 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.
...
Actually, I graduated in Software Engineering from Uni :lecture:


:)
 

algrove

Well-known member
Just back from the first hands on with the XT. Thanks Chris.

I am an Alpa shooter and I very much like shifting my HR40 say +12, -12 which probably gives me about 30mm lens give or take.

When I first was deciding on a tech cam I remember Jack said in a thread about an old study from say Arca-Swiss or someone else suggesting for a 3 lens setup use sensor (or film) dimensions this way with the IQ3 or now IQ4:

vertical for wide=40mm
diagonal for medium=70mm and
2-3 times length for tele=150mm for me or could be a 90 for someone else.
and for everything else, walk.

Even though I now use the 90au and S-K 210, Jack's basic suggestion still holds and it has been GAS that expanded my lens lineup.

With the 32mm the XT is very functional and the 23 VERY wide. It has an excellent design with every feature one could want in a small package except for tilt. When in portrait mode it would be nice to have the scale on the side of the body facing the photographer even though it shows all X and Y adjustments on the back. I guess I'm old school.

If I owned a Cambo setup I would be very tempted as even manual lenses will work on the XT. But is that the reason to get one? A Cambo shooter with us mentioned he likes his current setup and the tilt offered by his 1600. I like the tilt on my Alpa gear also.

Another individual who shoots an XF is considering the XT and for good reason to reduce the weight he carries around. As a matter of fact that's why everyone with me today that either has a tech cam or is considering getting one is due to weight considerations.

The current XT lens lineup for me is not what I want. I often shoot long even though Jack's 'walk closer' comment has obvious merit. The XT will probably get the 138mm next year.

If you are not a current tech cam owner, this is the choice right now. If you need or want longer lens choices like the 90 or 180 then manual Cambo lenses might be your answer since they will work on the XT in manual mode.

Just my 2 cents and Jack I trust my paraphrasing does not upset you.
 
Last edited:

mristuccia

Well-known member
It has an excellent design with every feature one could want in a small package except for tilt.
Today I've tried the XT. It is small, lightweight, good looking and fully integrated.
The guy of P1 who showed me it said that tilt option will come the next year.
If I could afford it together with the IQ4 back, I would in any case wait for the tilt lenses before pulling the trigger.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Not so sure about tilt coming to the XT in the next 15 months due to lens design. The thickness of the aperture blades and electronics makes for difficult tilt design I was told today.
 

TheDude

Member
Not so sure about tilt coming to the XT in the next 15 months due to lens design. The thickness of the aperture blades and electronics makes for difficult tilt design I was told today.
If tilt would have been possible, the XT would have come with tilt.

For many, no tilt (or auto focus stacking) might be a deal-breaker.
 

mristuccia

Well-known member
If tilt would have been possible, the XT would have come with tilt.

For many, no tilt (or auto focus stacking) might be a deal-breaker.
Not so sure about tilt coming to the XT in the next 15 months due to lens design. The thickness of the aperture blades and electronics makes for difficult tilt design I was told today.
I'm really ignorant about the tech camera sector and tecnologies, I just asked the P1 representative.
But I have in mind the Cambo WTS Rodie lenses, so I've thought it could have been possible to do the same with the new "P1-shutterized" lenses.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Phase went with Cambo. Cambo makes no camera body with tilt or swing instead you buy the lens mount in T/S or not.

For the price IMO Phase had a chance to design from the ground up no reason tilt should have been overlooked. They did not rebrand an existing Cambo body.

Price point has eliminated the XT from consideration for me.

Just too expensive to switch.

I hope Phase does well with it obviously has taken away from cycles that could have been used to fix existing issues on the IQ4 and the new issues that came with the latest firmware update.

Paul C
 

alajuela

Active member
I think one of the main features Phase is touting is the intergraded shutter. I can sorta understand no tilt on the 32 and certainly on the 23, but I think should they integrate T/S in the shutter, then the 70 is odd man out.
I shot the camera with Chris and gotta say it is certainly nice. I hope Phase follows through and delivers the features promised on the current systems and not surprise us with new models/ upgrades to drain the wallets

Phil
 

TheDude

Member
... one of the main features Phase is touting is the intergraded shutter....
This is THE main feature.

Rodenstock lenses with Copal shutters are no longer available from Rodenstock. It is my understanding that now all the stock of new Copal lenses have been used up.
 

Christopher

Active member
And that’s why we now have Rodenstocks Aperture only mount. Combined with ES it works great. Sure, there are some use cases where a real shutter helps. At least until with have a Globalshutter
This is THE main feature.

Rodenstock lenses with Copal shutters are no longer available from Rodenstock. It is my understanding that now all the stock of new Copal lenses have been used up.
 

Christopher

Active member
Two simple questions, will the 90 come? Will it need a spacer? And does the cambo version work? It DOES need a spacer, so the question is whether a spacer actually works or if the mount is fixed to the XT.
 

Phase V

Member
I was at the Calumet Show in Munich and talked to the Cambo guy about the XT and
he was not sure about if and when the 90 or the 138 would become availalble in
XT-mount.
What i got away from him was: The shutter is made in Israel by Leaf and
will eventually become availalble for Alpa as well, what surprised me a little bit and
that every single bit of the XT-Design was strictly specificated by Phase One no
matter how silly it might be.
I also talked to my Phase One dealer and he seems to be depressed because the IQ4 has been a desaster up to now in terms of maintenance etc. and Phase One is not
helping at all, i think they really got hit by Fuji and are a bit of paralyzed right now.
 
Last edited:

algrove

Well-known member
Phae V

No one mentioned that the change in ownership at Phase might have taken many at Phase off their game with regards to the IQ4 since now one can assume pushing the XT is really what Phase cares about now.

Perhaps the new owners impressed upon Phase how important the IQ4 release was and they rushed it a bit prematurely?
 

Pelorus

Member
It's an interesting thought. I recently had cause to ask Capture One/Phase One a simple question: All new MBP ship with 10.14.6 as standard OS. C1 lists 10.14.5 as the supported version. I asked two things: Does it support 10.14.6 and does it support the already released Catalina - 10.15.x

The reply was simply bizarre: The latest supported version is 10.14.5 I was told and not they couldn't comment on 10.14.6 as they did not discuss "future versions" of C1. The same applied to Catalina support.

I've worked in the IT sector for a long time. Those answers, in practical terms are a sign that all is not well within Capture/Phase. These are not "future versions" about which secrecy may be required because of fantastic new and highly competitive features! This is simply about continuing support by C1 for one of the two major operating systems that they purport to support. These are currently released OS versions for which betas have been available for months in the case of Catalina. This is a technical matter of ensuring ongoing compatibility of their product with the currently released OS.

My experience is that as companies grow and as software capability complexifies, there often comes an inflexion point where the competent people who have managed the software business to that point, suddenly, are incapable of managing the new scale/complexity issues. This feels like one such point for C1. It may also be that investors have changed and brought new expectations for focus or performance metrics.

Whatever the case a new broom is required in the software area at C1/Phase. The culture needs to return to delivering timely value to customers, ensuring ongoing support in a timely way for supported operating systems and ceasing to behave as if everything is a secret - openness and engagement would be a good starting point. There is indeed something rotten in the state of Denmark at present to paraphrase someone.

In terms of openness and engagement with the market, I can only suggest that Phase may take a leaf out of....Fuji's book.

<\endrant>


Phae V

No one mentioned that the change in ownership at Phase might have taken many at Phase off their game with regards to the IQ4 since now one can assume pushing the XT is really what Phase cares about now.

Perhaps the new owners impressed upon Phase how important the IQ4 release was and they rushed it a bit prematurely?
 

Mexecutioner

Well-known member
It's an interesting thought. I recently had cause to ask Capture One/Phase One a simple question: All new MBP ship with 10.14.6 as standard OS. C1 lists 10.14.5 as the supported version. I asked two things: Does it support 10.14.6 and does it support the already released Catalina - 10.15.x

The reply was simply bizarre: The latest supported version is 10.14.5 I was told and not they couldn't comment on 10.14.6 as they did not discuss "future versions" of C1. The same applied to Catalina support.

I've worked in the IT sector for a long time. Those answers, in practical terms are a sign that all is not well within Capture/Phase. These are not "future versions" about which secrecy may be required because of fantastic new and highly competitive features! This is simply about continuing support by C1 for one of the two major operating systems that they purport to support. These are currently released OS versions for which betas have been available for months in the case of Catalina. This is a technical matter of ensuring ongoing compatibility of their product with the currently released OS.

My experience is that as companies grow and as software capability complexifies, there often comes an inflexion point where the competent people who have managed the software business to that point, suddenly, are incapable of managing the new scale/complexity issues. This feels like one such point for C1. It may also be that investors have changed and brought new expectations for focus or performance metrics.

Whatever the case a new broom is required in the software area at C1/Phase. The culture needs to return to delivering timely value to customers, ensuring ongoing support in a timely way for supported operating systems and ceasing to behave as if everything is a secret - openness and engagement would be a good starting point. There is indeed something rotten in the state of Denmark at present to paraphrase someone.

In terms of openness and engagement with the market, I can only suggest that Phase may take a leaf out of....Fuji's book.

<\endrant>

I've been using it on 2 machines on 10.14.6 for quite a while with no issues.
 
Top