Topic: Phase One News: XF Body, IQ3 backs, 35LS, 120LS, C1 8.3, Website (Read 73973 times)

tom_l · « **Reply #120 on:** June 09, 2015, 03:13:30 pm »

As a long time V user, probably going for the XF camera in the next few years (as it has the promised WLF), i realise that if in these forums, a lot of people have the latest and newest, most of them Phamiya cameras. But out there in the studios it isn't really like that. In my corner of the world, of the 13 backs (professionaly used) from colleagues I know of
10 are Phase One, 3 Hasselblad (the P1 dealer is active, the Hasselblad one is not)

out of these 10 is 1 Contax, 4 V-Mount, 5 Mamiya and no H Mount. Some only use a view camera and probably don't care what mount it is in.
But of course, this can be different in other parts of the world.

Tom

yashima · « **Reply #121 on:** June 09, 2015, 08:42:27 pm »

Thank you Steve for correcting me. What is your view on the fact that Contax second hand backs always demand higher price (around 1.5x) than H, Mamiya/Phase, and (a little less so) V back?

What we would really like to see is the back separated from the adapter plate. I remember one of the first MFDB, the Jenoptik Eyelike, one back and adapter plates for every kind of system. I dont think worrying that it would lower the sale is justified, quite likely the opposite.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #122 on:** June 09, 2015, 11:01:58 pm »

Quote from: yashima on June 09, 2015, 08:42:27 pm

What we would really like to see is the back separated from the adapter plate.

Leaving the business aspects aside, I wonder if it is really possible technically to do this while garanteeing enough mechanical accuracy of sensor axis relative to lens axis?

I would think that the more interfaces you add, the higher the resulting tolerance stack.

Cheers,
Bernard

gerald.d · « **Reply #123 on:** June 10, 2015, 07:17:47 am »

Quote from: BernardLanguillier on June 09, 2015, 11:01:58 pm

Leaving the business aspects aside, I wonder if it is really possible technically to do this while garanteeing enough mechanical accuracy of sensor axis relative to lens axis?

I would think that the more interfaces you add, the higher the resulting tolerance stack.

Cheers,
Bernard

Seems to work fine for those using tech cams, which require an adapter plate of their own.

Taking things to the extreme, from memory there are some scenarios where there can be as many as 7 physical interfaces between the lens and the back in the ALPA system.

Done right, there's no reason why introducing another physical interface should cause a problem.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

eronald · « **Reply #124 on:** June 10, 2015, 07:24:29 am »

Quote from: gerald.d on June 10, 2015, 07:17:47 am

Seems to work fine for those using tech cams, which require an adapter plate of their own.

Taking things to the extreme, from memory there are some scenarios where there can be as many as 7 physical interfaces between the lens and the back in the ALPA system.

Done right, there's no reason why introducing another physical interface should cause a problem.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

Mirrorless such as Alpa is easier because all the focusing checking etc is done at the focal plane.

With box cameras everything needs to stay aligned, in particular the focus system is independent from the focal plane real position

yashima · « **Reply #125 on:** June 10, 2015, 09:49:37 am »

I agree with Gerald. Remember with film there's another interface which is the insert to film back, and it manages fine.

While Phase One would say its a matter of tolerance/calibration, make no mistake its a question of sale and how committed Phase One is towards being "open"

gerald.d · « **Reply #126 on:** June 10, 2015, 10:39:27 am »

Quote from: eronald on June 10, 2015, 07:24:29 am

Mirrorless such as Alpa is easier because all the focusing checking etc is done at the focal plane.

With box cameras everything needs to stay aligned, in particular the focus system is independent from the focal plane real position

Maybe I'm missing something, but this distinction doesn't make any sense to me at all.

With technical cameras, everything needs to stay aligned as well - throughout the entire chain.

Robert Free · « **Reply #127 on:** June 10, 2015, 12:58:04 pm »

I have to say that both Luminous Landscape articles so far published about the XF and Phase One's current state of development, don't feel like authentic journalism to me. I'm not saying the XF isn't a great product or that there's anything inaccurate in the articles - but one writer has been very, very close to the company and the other has a vested interest as a vendor.

The most recent article reads more like an infomercial than a review and I'm disappointed that Luminous Landscape isn't reaching to find some reviewers who are better separated from the company.

Jeffery Salter · « **Reply #128 on:** June 10, 2015, 01:51:21 pm »

Quote from: Robert Free on June 10, 2015, 12:58:04 pm

The most recent article reads more like an infomercial than a review and I'm disappointed that Luminous Landscape isn't reaching to find some reviewers who are better separated from the company.

Welcome to Luminous Landscape.

Have no fear. As soon as the many seasoned photographers, weekend warriors and landscape artists on this wonderful site have the XF and etc in hand. We will "Let it ring from the rafters".

Amen.

regards,
Jeffery

eronald · « **Reply #129 on:** June 10, 2015, 02:48:14 pm »

Quote from: gerald.d on June 10, 2015, 10:39:27 am

Maybe I'm missing something, but this distinction doesn't make any sense to me at all.

With technical cameras, everything needs to stay aligned as well - throughout the entire chain.

Tech cams have a single optical path, SLRs have another viewfinder path thru mirror and prism, and a focus path thru secondary mirror to AF system.

Edmund

Doug Peterson · « **Reply #130 on:** June 24, 2015, 04:57:26 pm »

For those tethering with USB...

Phase One IQ3 and XF will be powered by USB3 hubs which include Charging Ports

Doug Peterson · « **Reply #131 on:** June 24, 2015, 05:04:02 pm »

Quote from: Robert Free on June 10, 2015, 12:58:04 pm

I have to say that both Luminous Landscape articles so far published about the XF and Phase One's current state of development, don't feel like authentic journalism to me.[...] I'm disappointed that Luminous Landscape isn't reaching to find some reviewers who are better separated from the company.

We (Digital Transitions) would be glad to arrange for you to test the XF/IQ3 so you can make up your own mind and post your own findings. I don't claim that I'm unbiased - I'm biased as hell. But I'm also a big fan of real world evaluation, and glad to help facilitate that any way I can.

eronald · « **Reply #132 on:** June 25, 2015, 06:03:24 am »

Quote from: bcooter on June 25, 2015, 05:57:16 am

I gotta hand it too you Doug. You can push the sales line. It's amazing you can take a readers critique of your "sales message" disguised as a journalistic report, and turn it around in an attempt to sell.

When I read this I thought, wow, if this guy would sell something with higher margins, like Teslas or Rolls Royce Jet Engines, but then I thought, hmmm, probably nothing has a higher margin than Phase One cameras.

IMO

BC

+1. Phase is in the luxury business, like Vuitton, Hermés. Products are well made, high margin, but don't really do anything a plastic shopping bag cannot.
I guess the A7RII at 10% of the Phase is the plastic shopping bag, and your momma raised no fools

E.

synn · « **Reply #133 on:** June 25, 2015, 07:21:31 am »

Quote from: bcooter on June 25, 2015, 05:57:16 am

When I read this I thought, wow, if this guy would sell something with higher margins, like Teslas or Rolls Royce Jet Engines, but then I thought, hmmm, probably nothing has a higher margin than Phase One cameras.

IMO

BC

Come visit our Weihnachtsmarkts in December. Glühwein worth 40 cents per cup is sold for EUR 6.
Surely, Phase's profit margin can't be that high?

ciccio · « **Reply #134 on:** June 25, 2015, 09:58:54 am »

phase unfortunetaly for them is not hermes or ferrari...
only few knows them,
we can say that leica is a brand with history that can be compared ,apple with apple.
so don t think that there will be a lot of buyers just to show off , with the brand phase one.
best.

Don Libby · « **Reply #135 on:** June 25, 2015, 10:42:50 am »

I agree with cooter...

There used to be a time years ago Doug when I listened to what you had to say regarding technical aspects of medium format. Sadly the past couple years you've turned into nothing more than a sales pitch and at least for me have lost credibility for the technical side of things.

Just my 2¢

EricWHiss · « **Reply #136 on:** June 25, 2015, 12:07:41 pm »

I tested the XF body in San Francisco at the Bear Images event. I hope to write out more detailed response but quickly a few notes since it seems there is a lot of salesmanship going on in this post. It's definitely a big improvement over the DF+ but I'd recommend that people try it out for themselves.

The AF is not noticeably faster than the DF+ and you can still count while it moves from near to far. I am told this has more to do with the AF motors in the existing lenses which are now driven as fast as possible. Maybe there will be newer versions of the lenses in the future which would enable it to go faster? I'm also told the honeybee naming comes from one of the guys who worked on the camera who keeps bees in his yard. It's not necessarily related to any special hardware. I can't recall who posted to the forums about potential upgrades to add more AF functionality such as multipoint but this doesn't seem likely at least with the digital backs that are currently offered. Hopefully someone will clarify that?

The exposure metering with the WLF fitted is limited to spot metering only, but complete metering is offered only with the prism attached.

The display visible in the viewfinder is about the same as in the DF+ which is too bad since the XF is a lot smarter and there is more info that could be shown in finder. They did not have a WLF available to test, but with one fitted you'll need to look at the display near the grip for info since there is nothing displayed in the frame or above it.

The camera is definitely built like a tank. I'm sure Phase One will be able to make ad's with trucks driving over them. It's definitely heavier than the DF, and though it has a nicer grip IMO, you still notice the weight.

ciccio · « **Reply #137 on:** June 25, 2015, 12:54:27 pm »

GOOD LUCK WITH THE SALES OF AN ALBATROSS....
best.

synn · « **Reply #138 on:** June 25, 2015, 01:25:00 pm »

Quote from: ciccio on June 25, 2015, 12:54:27 pm

GOOD LUCK WITH THE SALES OF AN ALBATROSS....
best.

I think we got it after the 57th time.
Best.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #139 on:** June 25, 2015, 02:02:31 pm »

It is just that technical cameras have a shorter chain, that may be built with higher precision.

An AF DSLR adds a lot of additional links. Think this way:

An ALPA body with a IQ-250 back focused in live view-> lens mount and sensor must be parallel and infinity focus must be possible.

A MF DSLR: bayonet and sensor needs to be parallell and infinity focus must be possible. Plus, Mirror position must be accurate, secondary mirror position must be accurate, AF-sensor position must be accurate, focusing screen position must be accurate. Adding to that both the mirror and the secondary mirror are rapidly moving assemblies.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: gerald.d on June 10, 2015, 10:39:27 am

Maybe I'm missing something, but this distinction doesn't make any sense to me at all.

With technical cameras, everything needs to stay aligned as well - throughout the entire chain.

Author Topic: Phase One News: XF Body, IQ3 backs, 35LS, 120LS, C1 8.3, Website (Read 73973 times)