Interesting Q&A from a fashion pro on giving up his Phase One system.

[EricWHiss]

The XF is a decent camera, basically the same thing as the LEAF Afi, except it was made by Mamiya, and can take only *IQ* backs.

Nope, the AFi is the same thing as the Rolleiflex Hy6 or Sinar Hy6.   The XF+ is not the same thing at all.  The Hy6/AFi was designed to take both film and digital backs and has 4 different finders.  The Hy6 lens system supports 6x6 and is not limited to 645.  The Hy6 has fantastic ergonomics with physical slider switches for the modes and scroll wheels for aperture and shutter speeds, dedicated DOF preview and micro lock up buttons. You never need to take your eye from the finder or hand from the grip since the buttons and sliders are within reach and have physical positions - that is good ergonomics.   It can sync at any speed since all of the lenses new and legacy are leaf shutter.  I tested the Hy6 Mod2 side by side the XF+ and was surprised by how heavy the XF+ is with the 90 finder (their only finder with full metering capability) and also noted that with 80's on both cameras the Hy6 was faster to autofocus.     I think the XF+ has a supercharged computer inside with some interesting features such as the vibration sensor, but what good is all that when it still suffers from  a usability standpoint?   Obviously I'm biased, but I do think the Hy6 Mod2 is a better camera.  I just wonder what phase might have done if they took the Hy6 as a starting point instead of the Mamiya 645. 

btw - in my last communication with the factory I hear that the Hy6 is back in production (in small quantities). 

And with regards to the OT and the fellow ditching his Phase One for a Nikon - I do hear that but mostly for the A7r2 and then only for digital - a lot of shooters have been also shooting film which conversely brings them into MF.   Kind of a circle actually. 

[torger]

Concerning reliability there are all sorts of personal anecdotal stories (I have them too, zero failures with my Canon gear, quite some with my MF gear) but regardless I think it's quite obvious that one should expect the MF cameras to be less reliable in a statistical sense. It's the same with practically all niche gear (or software), it's higher cost, less tested and less reliable. Mass market products are heavily tested as problems in them leads to massive losses and due to the large volume you have more resources to spend on testing too. With high cost niche gear you instead have a tight support channel (dealers) that help out.

That it's potentially less reliable does not necessarily mean that it's a problem, most shooting scenarios with MF gear allows you to take one other shot if there's a hickup, and the jobs are such that you have backup gear. It's different if you're doing photojournalism or wildlife then you probably don't have backup gear as you can't carry it, and any hickup (or slowness) can cause you to miss that shot. And naturally, MFD is generally not used for those genres.

[gavincato]

FWIW, I've had a few err99's from my 1dx - not very common but it does happen. Zero from my 645z.

I feel for the guy though, if I was getting regular lockups with my gear I'd chuck it regardless of brand.

[synn]

Good for that guy. Shoot with whatever that you're happy with.
I have had zero issues with my DF+ though. I switch it on, it works and that's that.

[Jeffery Salter]

I am an actual owner of a Phase One IQ260 digital back and a XF camera body.  Zero issues.  My Digital back has never failed and in six months of steady use the XF camera has proved itself in real world usage.  And with each firmware update more features are unlocked.  It's a fun camera to use.  It looks old school but has some cool features like the vibration shutter release mode.

[Doug Peterson]

Good for that guy. Shoot with whatever that you're happy with.
I have had zero issues with my DF+ though. I switch it on, it works and that's that.

To be fair, you received your DF+ after the issues with it were resolved.

For a while there the lockup rate and repair rate on DF and DF+ bodies were not up to Phase One standards. That was resolved by firmware updates, a switch to usingLiOn batteries, and improvements to the manufacturing process.

The ghost of that period will haunt Phase One for years. But it is a ghost; a DF+ with up to date firmware is a reliable tool, and the XF is a beast. You'll be hard pressed to find any end user review of the XF that is less than glowing. A huge amount of investment went into making the XF as robust as possible (the amount of metal in the design is pretty staggering - hence, it's got some heft); they are confident enough to give a 5 year warranty on all components (back, body, and lenses) on any IQ3 package.

[Paul2660]

It's sad that Team Phase One is not confident enough in the XF to give it a five year warranty when it's purchased with a IQ3 upgrade only when the Iq3 3 is purchased new. And new vs upgrade is about 3:1 or so last time I checked. And Team Phase One's entire purchase strategy is based around back upgrades which is good.  I don't know of any other MF company that has such a process.

It's also sad the way Team Phase One treats existing customers in the new back orders are given preference over upgrades. This effected XF shipments during the entire 2nd half of 2015 and is now effecting upgrades to the 100MP back.  Many of the upgrade customers myself included have been owners of Team Phase One products since 2007 or earlier. And to be placed behind someone how has never ordered or owned a Team Phase One product is quite a bit disappointing.

Paul C

[eronald]

This trick of products being preannounced and then always being "constrained" is what makes them money and scr*ws the competition. When the product is announced the price can be as high as one wants as it is unique. Then a few samples get delivered, while production costs go down by 40% per year on the electronics, customers are stockpiled in the pipeline, as indicated here, and the profit comes rolling in. They would be losing money or at least not making it by serving everyone right now.

Edmund

It's sad that Team Phase One is not confident enough in the XF to give it a five year warranty when it's purchased with a IQ3 upgrade only when the Iq3 3 is purchased new. And new vs upgrade is about 3:1 or so last time I checked. And Team Phase One's entire purchase strategy is based around back upgrades which is good.  I don't know of any other MF company that has such a process.

It's also sad the way Team Phase One treats existing customers in the new back orders are given preference over upgrades. This effected XF shipments during the entire 2nd half of 2015 and is now effecting upgrades to the 100MP back.  Many of the upgrade customers myself included have been owners of Team Phase One products since 2007 or earlier. And to be placed behind someone how has never ordered or owned a Team Phase One product is quite a bit disappointing.

Paul C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Doug,

Nice to hear that the problems are resolved.

How dependable a system is, you still need a fallback on an important mission. I would never go on a important trip with a single body.

You can perhaps visit a place once a year and it may be that you get great light once in five years. So, you shoot with the best stuff you can carry, but you still need a decent level of fallback, if the best stuff happens to fail that day.

So far, I have been lucky. No critical stuff failed for me in 30 years. Well, except with film. Some great images have been spoiled by labs.

Best regards
Erik

To be fair, you received your DF+ after the issues with it were resolved.

For a while there the lockup rate and repair rate on DF and DF+ bodies were not up to Phase One standards. That was resolved by firmware updates, a switch to usingLiOn batteries, and improvements to the manufacturing process.

The ghost of that period will haunt Phase One for years. But it is a ghost; a DF+ with up to date firmware is a reliable tool, and the XF is a beast. You'll be hard pressed to find any end user review of the XF that is less than glowing. A huge amount of investment went into making the XF as robust as possible (the amount of metal in the design is pretty staggering - hence, it's got some heft); they are confident enough to give a 5 year warranty on all components (back, body, and lenses) on any IQ3 package.

[EricWHiss]

(the amount of metal in the design is pretty staggering - hence, it's got some heft)

Yeah definitely true.  I think the designers were expecting marketing to have elephants stand on it again.   

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

"Reddit" was not happy with the reliability of his P1 system, but there were other factors.

• He improved his Nikon with minor upgrades, D800 -> D810, adding a power grip and a viewfinder magnifier
• He added a Sigma 50/1.4 Art lens
• He can carry the Nikon stuff with a backup in a carry on
• Costs

I have noticed some well know faces here on LuLa switching from MFD to Sony A7r. Note, not the much improved Sony A7rII but to the original A7r.

There were probably a few main reasons for those users switching:

• Live view for framing and focusing
• Used with Hasselblad or Pentax lenses and don't need LCC correction or central ND filters
• Good enough image quality
• Easy to use with a reasonable size drone
• Integrates well with Canon T&S lenses
• Offers TS&S with many existing lenses

The two photographers I have in mind are Chris Barret and Rainer Viertlböck.

Best regards
Erik

[mjrichardson]

Afternoon.

The most important thing when photographing for a living is to use the kit that gives you what you need, it doesn't matter what that kit is. I'm happy the chap has changed to equipment that suits him but it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to anyone else unless they too are using kit that isn't optimal for what they shoot.

The photographers you mention who changed to Sony, with all due respect those guys could shoot anything they lay their hands on and produce beautiful work because they understand composition, light and the process, their images are not great because they use Sony, it's just a small part of the image production as a whole, which is why just buying the same kit doesn't give the same results for others less talented or practiced. There's a lot more to the final image than what you shoot with, finding what works for you is brilliant but it is too personal to be relevant to anyone else.

Mat

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What you write makes little sense, sorry to say.

Very clearly, some of the reasons I mentioned were given by the photographers in question.

I certainly don't think that switching gear makes you a better photographer.

But, there is enabling technology. Both person mentioned are well known architecture photographers and they need a set of lenses allowing for shifts. Chris Barret can use Canon T&S lenses with the A7r and he can also use Hasselblad MFD lenses with a miniature view camera with the Sony A7r on the back. I am pretty sure that live view, and no need for LCC exposures are the main benefits he sees. Chris has sold of almost all of his MFD gear.

Rainer Viertlböck was involved in the design of ArTec, but he writes he does 95% of his work with the Sony now.

Clearly, these two photographers did not switch to Sony because they needed Sony technology to make great pictures.

In a sense, your writing can be interpreted as saying: Great photographers are masters of light and they don't need expensive equipment made in Denmark, Germany or Switzerland to impress their customers. They can do with an amateur camera made in Japan with a bunch of affordable lenses from EBay.

Admittedly, I am a Sony shooter, but that does not make me a Sony fanboy. But, there is a good reason that the two photographers mentioned have chosen Sony. It has a short flange distance enabling T&S technology and Sony is the only vendor of 24x36 mirrorless above 24 MP. The Leica M (type 240) may be an option but at a much higher price and far less support.

So, I guess that Chris and Rainer are not only great photographers but also pretty smart businessmen, choosing the gear that is most appropriate for their work. You have any issue with that?

Finally, reading trough this thread, I don't think any one stated or implied that shooting Sony or any other make makes you a better photographer. So what's the deal?

Best regards
Erik

Afternoon.
...
The photographers you mention who changed to Sony, with all due respect those guys could shoot anything they lay their hands on and produce beautiful work because they understand composition, light and the process, their images are not great because they use Sony, it's just a small part of the image production as a whole, which is why just buying the same kit doesn't give the same results for others less talented or practiced. There's a lot more to the final image than what you shoot with, finding what works for you is brilliant but it is too personal to be relevant to anyone else.

Mat

[mjrichardson]

Ha, why are you sorry to say? Just because you don't understand my point doesn't mean there isn't one.

In my opinion, what any individual choses to photograph with is of no relevance to anyone besides themselves, good photographers and indeed business men will chose what is right for them based on their own requirements, medium format, ff, m43's, APS-c, it makes no difference to anyone else, it only matters to them and their clients with the final output. You happened to mention 2 photographers who moved to Sony, my point is that they are so good it wouldn't matter what they shoot with. Their output is a combination of many factors, borne out by the fact that they use the same cameras as many other people who don't produce anywhere near the same quality of output. Same can be said for talented people using any camera they chose.

As for the original post, which I was responding to, it is not interesting to me particularly that a guy shooting one type of equipment decided that alternative equipment would suit him better, it doesn't matter to anyone but him, surely?

"In a sense, your writing can be interpreted as saying: Great photographers are masters of light and they don't need expensive equipment made in Denmark, Germany or Switzerland to impress their customers. They can do with an amateur camera made in Japan with a bunch of affordable lenses from EBay."

I'm saying that it doesn't matter what they use as long as it works for them, IQ3100 or ebay special, if the work is inspirational then who cares?

[torger]

If one is interested in camera gear and its future development it's I think it's quite interesting to hear why photographers choose one camera on another. At some point you start seeing a paradigm shift, where a mass of users start making the same decisions.

For example, 4x5" photographers stayed on film because of the better quality until P45+ came around which many considered to be equal or even better than their film result and that drastically shifted the balance, and 4x5" started to become a narrow niche format.

I'm watching now closely what's happening in the tech camera segment. We start to see tendencies that optical movements may be replaced by center frames with software keystoning and cropping as a result of higher resolution sensors (and at the same time less movement-capable, but high resolution would probably pull it in that direction anyway at some point). In parallel there's a movement to smaller format cameras and retrofocus lenses, like the mentioned architecture photographers.

Likewise I'm sure many are interested to see if the increasingly high resolution smaller format cameras and better availability of high resolution lenses will make a shift in the 135-MF balance too.

I see a slow consolidation process going on where cameras become more and more similar in feature set and performance. MFD can both gain and lose from this process. To gain I think they need to come down a bit in price and become even more 135-like in behavior so they can come up in volume (if the price and feature set is right, there will be interest for the extra resolution, the 645z is already in this space, still with a bit weak lens range though), with the current high price model in some brands the increased similarity seems more like a long-term threat than an opportunity.

[torger]

Oh, on the subject about not really caring about gear and only about the image. Today people start out their serious photography not with MF film or large format like in the past, now you start with 135 digital. And really if you only care about the image there is no need to switch to anything else, you have all creative opportunities right there (with some extremely narrow exceptions).

In the past starting out with MFD could be a natural transition from going from MF film or large format film. It was also then a big image quality gap between MFD and 135 which was actually visible in a magazine spread. I think there's still quite a few MFD users that come from this segment, they may not really care much about gear but ended up there as it was the natural pro choice to make. If they would start over today they would have stayed on 135.

As choosing MFD has become less natural and automatic, I think that today most new MFD users are "gear junkies" in one way or another. Paying that large amount of money for so little difference in end result can't be explained in any other way. Ironically I see it's common that many that talk about "gear is not important" themselves have the most exotic gear. Obviously it's important to them.

The question I think many MFD users have asked is "for this type of images what type of camera gives me the highest possible image quality with the smoothest workflow" and indeed then you may end up with MFD in some cases. If you instead start thinking along the lines "does these differences in end result add meaningful value to my images" you're probably happy with your Canon or Nikon.

I chose to shoot a Linhof to get the zen-like large format shooting experience, composing at the scene with optical movements on the ground glass. Image quality was just one aspect of this choice and I've chosen to stay on the format despite that arguably better image quality can be had with cheaper systems these days, as I've chosen not to "upgrade" to the latest MFD which means downgrade in shooting experience from my perspective. The shooting process is important to me. And while Alpa had their slogan "it's simple at the top" I got the sense that there were others thinking the same way, that you could prefer a less electronic system just because it's less electronic and more traditional photography. Asking around on the forums like this I've however noted that it's a very narrow view (most of those that share it shoot film it seems), for most digital users (in the forums at least), it's 95% about image quality end result and few would dream of keeping a less capable system image-quality-wise just because they like the handling.

I'm personally feeling I'm almost reacting against the development, I'm not even sure I want live view any longer but instead continue my love-hate relationship with the ground glass. I guess it's time to start buying CCD digital backs and put them in the freezer

[mjrichardson]

Oh, on the subject about not really caring about gear and only about the image. Today people start out their serious photography not with MF film or large format like in the past, now you start with 135 digital. And really if you only care about the image there is no need to switch to anything else, you have all creative opportunities right there (with some extremely narrow exceptions).

Hi Anders

Maybe this is in response to my post, you may have missed my point a little, I care greatly, deeply about my own equipment, I just don't care about what others use! I don't think it's much of a story to say someone changed their equipment for cheaper equipment because it suits them better, great for them but hardly news is it? I don't read many, photographer upgrades equipment to more expensive and more suitable and produces nicer files stories, probably because it's not as interesting as saying I spent less money and don't need this expensive stuff.

Live and let live as far as I'm concerned, use whatever you like. I have seen some absolutely stunning photography from people like Murray Fredericks who sometimes posts on here, http://www.murrayfredericks.com.au/ I find his work absolutely jaw droppingly inspirational, some of which was shot on a P45+, some shot on other stuff, what is inspirational is the dedication, the effort to get to the places and the final images, I don't need to see them at 200% with shadows raised to see if there is any noise, I don't need to know whether he needed live view to focus etc. etc. the images are simply beautiful and I couldn't care less what he shot them with. I find Julian Calverley's iphone images to be beautiful, http://www.juliancalverley.com/books/iphoneonly-ibook/ I don't feel they have less value because of how they were shot, I could go on with many photographers. Almost exclusively my thoughts are always wow, how do I get there and see that for myself.

As with everything creative, we all see different things we like, use different equipment that suits us and long may it continue.

Have a nice weekend!

Mat

[Manoli]

... you may have missed my point a little ... I just don't care about what others use!

Perhaps not - it's not the 'what', it's the 'why'.

[mjrichardson]

If I'm not bothered what someone uses, why would I be interested in why they use it? I can hope that they get enjoyment from whatever they use on a basic level but it doesn't matter to me if they use something because it is all they can afford, they were given it or it's the absolute perfect piece of equipment for what they shoot, I don't see how that would matter? Obviously I am more than happy to accept that I am the only one who thinks this way, I am just far more interested in the vision and the final result, I can look at things that inspire me and feel that I would like to be there and see what I can produce with what I have and my vision, I certainly don't think if I used the same equipment or had the same reasons for using it I would be able to produce the same.

Each to their own!

Mat

[Christoph B.]

I guess you could say that bigger formats are always a bigger hassle.

Before the digitale era people also used to switch back and forth between bigger and smaller formats. 35mm film is easy to use, you can pack a lot of photos on one film and it's light weight, doesn't need as much power, less vibration etc - and in many cases it's more reliable. I remember that my Hasselblad sometimes used to jam during shoots as well but my AE/A1 never had any problems what so ever.

I guess the question is how much trouble you 'want' to go through to achieve the quality you desire. If you don't want or need the MF 'look'/'feel' then it'd be a bad idea to use one. If you want the LF 'look'/'feel' then even a medium format camera won't do.

Having said that I'm personally very satisfied with my PhaseOne experience on the 645DF+. The only times it 'gltiched' were caused by me and my inexperience with the camera or bad handling of the tethering and 1-2 software issues. Yes, CaptureOne crashed on two occasions during shoots for magazines - but one click and it worked again for the rest of the day. I can live with that and nobody complained or was annoyed - they were just happy to see big, detailed files appear instantly on the screen instead of having to wait for the photographer to switch memory cards.
I will definitely get a second body soon - just in case.

But the last months have been very enjoyable, much better than my experiences with Canon and all the other brands I got a chance to work with and use over the years (except maybe for the Hasselblad 503CW). However - if the problems are mainly due to leafshutter jams I can't really comment, I only have the 80mm LS lens and always rent the other LS lenses (35€ for a day is reaaally reasonable!) and they never gave me any problems.
I guess it could be another story if I used them daily.

However there are a few things about his story I just didn't understand:

• Why didn't he just get a used 645DF(+) body as a backup? Does it have to be a new one if it's "just" a backup? Even a refurbished camera will be much cheaper
• Why double up on the lenses? If you need a backup a 75-150 will do fine for most applications and it covers a huge range. Combine that with a wide angle and that's it - most likely you won't even need the LS version, he's obviously not relying on the fast sync speed if he's content with a Nikon/Sony gear. Again: get used versions and they're just as good for much less money.
• Second back? Get a used P65+. It's a backup after all and has the same sensor as the 160, is just as fast....

To me a "backup" means something I can use in case my primary equipment fails. It has to be good enough to finish the job, not equal to or better than my primary equipment. If you want to buy everything brand new you can't really complain about the price, especially when there are a lot of options that are just as good and useful on the second hand market.

But: If his style does not need MF and he himself is content without it, then the whole price and reliability debate is a moot point. A magazine doesn't care if the photos are shot on a small, medium or large format camera, whats important is that it's good enough to print and that the content is good.