H5DC wifi vs. XF-IQ350C

[eronald]

Another review. As usual, the Hassy's screen and the XF's focus get skewered, while XF build quality and Hassy True Focus get complimented.

More interestingly, the author finds differences in the file quality. As C1 is usually stellar, and the chips identical, I get the impression that Phase's profile for the 50C may need improving - a bad profile will explode noise. Or else the author had a very bad Phase sample - or an extremely good Sony chip in the Hasselblad.

As concerns the AF of the Phase, I think the company should really fix the firmware rather than keep explaining that reviewers are incapable or biased. There is no reason to think the new hardware is less good than the competition, but there are simply too many credible reports to write off from competent users who find the XF not focusing well enough - while very many are customers are clearly content. Maybe there is some sort of gremlin which affects some cameras and not others.

http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4757

Each of these two cameras, and for that matter each of these two camera systems, have their weak points and their strong points. For myself, as you have probably surmised from the introduction, I found the Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to be the better camera for my needs. This may or may not be the case for still life photographers who shoot tethered in the studio all the time with the camera on a tripod. For those folks, the poor autofocus of the Phase One XF may not be an issue. For myself, the autofocus abilities of the H5D and the low noise at High ISOs, combined with the reliability factor and the user interface sealed the deal for me.

Talking with several photographers working with medium format systems, there are quite a few top-end portrait photographers who choose a hybrid camera: mating the H5D body with a Phase One IQ series digital back. With that combo you get the practical user interface of the H5D up front and the stellar LCD interface on the Phase One digital back. You also retain a camera that can focus accurately. In essence, you get the best of both worlds–unless you want to shoot at high ISOs. This is a workaround to be sure. You have to think one of these manufacturers would get it totally right here at some point. Amazingly, Phase One designed the perfect camera but failed in several key aspects like in the area of autofocus, ergonomics (at least for me) and high ISO noise.

Edmund

[Paul2660]

Interesting read as always.

Phase did seem to get the least noise floor out of the 50MP chip, at least to what I saw when I used the 50MP Phase and I have assumed that a firmware update might resolve this in the future.  From what I have seen from the 645Z, Phase has more room left.  However I really don't expect too much from ISO 6400 anyway, which is the top end on the 350 if I remember correctly.

The AF comments, interesting as in my use the XF is very accurate and extremely fast to focus.  Not sure why some photographers seem to still have issues and others (myself included) see the AF as vastly superior performer over the DF or DF+.  I have never used True Focus and a Hasselblad body so I can only compare Phase One AF current over past. 

Paul C

[DrakeJ]

Another review. As usual, the Hassy's screen and the XF's focus get skewered, while XF build quality and Hassy True Focus get complimented.

More interestingly, the author finds differences in the file quality. As C1 is usually stellar, and the chips identical, I get the impression that Phase's profile for the 50C may need improving - a bad profile will explode noise. Or else the author had a very bad Phase sample.

As concerns the AF of the Phase, I think the company should really fix the firmware rather than keep explaining that reviewers are incapable or biased. There is no reason to think the new hardware is less good than the competition, but there are simply too many credible reports to write off from competent users who find the XF not focusing well enough - while many are content.


http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4757

Edmund

I am testing the XF as we speak, my only previous experience has been with the 645DF+ and will do a demo of the H5D-50c a couple of weeks from now.

But I would not agree that the XF autofocus is bad at all as long as you don't recompose. I find it snappy and accurate, even in low light. I agree with everything he wrote on focus recompose though... Have a test shoot tomorrow with a friend, if it was for a client, wide open apertures would not be in the cards.

Love the system otherwise. I love good design and the danes have certainly succeeded there. I hope they will announce a better solution for recomposing before I make a decision whether to enter medium format or stay with 35mm.

[eronald]

It *might be possible* that all XF cameras do not focus equally well. There are many many happy customers, but also some people who are not habitual complainers who indicate issues. This review in particular is worrisome as it seems overly fair and balanced - read the last para - and is clearly written by someone who wants a camera for pro use and knows how to use a camera. Somebody who would call an H5 with a Phase back the perfect camera cannot exactly be accused of being a fanboy of either brand.

Edmund

I am testing the XF as we speak, my only previous experience has been with the 645DF+ and will do a demo of the H5D-50c a couple of weeks from now.

But I would not agree that the XF autofocus is bad at all as long as you don't recompose. I find it snappy and accurate, even in low light. I agree with everything he wrote on focus recompose though... Have a test shoot tomorrow with a friend, if it was for a client, wide open apertures would not be in the cards.

Love the system otherwise. I love good design and the danes have certainly succeeded there. I hope they will announce a better solution for recomposing before I make a decision whether to enter medium format or stay with 35mm.

[Paul2660]

Focus recompose is all that is in  the cards for Phase, at least that is what has been stated for now.   The only issue I have noted is due to the size of the center AF point on the XF (not sure if the entire CMOS AF chip is being used or not) but it's sometimes hard to get AF to pin point on single finer objects, mainly distant ones.

Feature set 2 added some improvements to the AF, mainly for low contrast/low light operations.

The only real issue I have with the AF, is noise.  Older Mamiya Schneider LS lenses, like the 80 or 55mm both have loud and slow motors.  The AF on the Blue label lenses I have tried is much quieter and seems a lot more tempered.  Nothing to do with accuracy I realize.

Paul C

[douglevy]

"As long as you don't recompose" - so you're stuck shooting stopped down or center focused images? I haven't used the XF but have been shootig H5X for a year and a half and I thought this was a fair review - and he's very upfront about the testing time differences he had with the cameras. It's clearly intented as a working pro's experiential review vs. a comprehensive one.

-Doug

[BobShaw]

"Lightroom affords the exact same image quality as can be had using Hasselblad’s Phocus software." Is there anything at all to back that up, other than they had access to the code?

I am not sure how the Hasselblad files were evaluated, but it appears to be just using Lightroom whereas the Phase files were exported from its raw converter, being Capture One. For a true comparison you should export the Hassy files out of Phocus. The Phase therefore "should" win, but didn't. I feel that the Hassy system is better all around than Phase having tried H2+Phase and now H3DII. Focus and recompose doesn't work so Hasselblad H4 and above wins there also.

[BernardLanguillier]

It would be interesting to compare the actual resolution present in a P1 IQ350 file focused and recomposed vs a 1dX II/D5 using a corner AF point.

My bet is that at f2.8 the pro DSLRs with less than half the resolution may resolve more.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

It would be interesting to compare the actual resolution present in a P1 IQ350 file focused and recomposed vs a 1dX II/D5 using a corner AF point.

My bet is that at f2.8 the pro DSLRs with less than half the resolution may resolve more.

Cheers,
Bernard

I am afraid you may be right.

Edmund

[william]

This post got me thinking that I've noticed somethings interesting over time:

Over the course of the past 15 years, the following have been my primary digital cameras in the following order:

Canon 1Ds and then 5D
Nikon D3x
Phase One P30+ on Contax 645
Nikon D800 (current)
Leica S (current)

I've shot a wide variety of lenses on all of them, including the Canon 85mm 1.2 on the canon bodies, various wide aperture AF lenses on the Nikon bodies, and various wide aperture lenses on the Leica S (100mm 2.0, among others).  When shooting with wide aperture lenses, I tend to shoot predominately at the widest aperture (otherwise, what's the point?). 

I shoot primarily people. 

Upon reflection, I've noticed something: the only one where I had significant numbers of out of focus shots due to focus and recompose is the Phase One P30+/Contax.  It was so bad that I sent it back to the dealer to have it checked out and spent a lot of time on the phone with them.  As far as they could tell, there was nothing "wrong" with the back per se.

Note that with the Nikon and canon bodies, I seldom bothered to use the outer focus points: I just left it in the center.  So I was doing focus and recompose (and still am, with the D800).  And the Leica S, of course, only has a single focus point.  On the canon, Nikon, and Leica S bodies, focus & recompose presented/presents no problems for me at all; the overwhelming majority of shots are in focus, even when full length portraits, the most challenging scenario for focus and recompose in my experience, I.e.., you focus on the eye and then have to swing the lens way down to get a full body shot.  With the Phase/Contax, I had about a 75% success rate with half-body focus and recompose; with full length shots, it was far far less, maybe 20%.

All of this leads me to wonder not whether something is *wrong* with Phase backs in a focus and recompose scenario, but whether there's something *different* with Phase backs that would dictate a different focus and recompose technique than with most other cameras.

Of course, correlation isn't causation.  That is, the commonality may not be Phase backs' performance in a focus and recompose scenario, but maybe instead there's something similar about the Contax body and the XF body dictating a different focus and recompose technique than with other bodies...



 

[eronald]

Deleted.

Edmund

This post got me thinking that I've noticed somethings interesting over time:

Over the course of the past 15 years, the following have been my primary digital cameras in the following order:

Canon 1Ds and then 5D
Nikon D3x
Phase One P30+ on Contax 645
Nikon D800 (current)
Leica S (current)

I've shot a wide variety of lenses on all of them, including the Canon 85mm 1.2 on the canon bodies, various wide aperture AF lenses on the Nikon bodies, and various wide aperture lenses on the Leica S (100mm 2.0, among others).  When shooting with wide aperture lenses, I tend to shoot predominately at the widest aperture (otherwise, what's the point?). 

I shoot primarily people. 

Upon reflection, I've noticed something: the only one where I had significant numbers of out of focus shots due to focus and recompose is the Phase One P30+/Contax.  It was so bad that I sent it back to the dealer to have it checked out and spent a lot of time on the phone with them.  As far as they could tell, there was nothing "wrong" with the back per se.

Note that with the Nikon and canon bodies, I seldom bothered to use the outer focus points: I just left it in the center.  So I was doing focus and recompose (and still am, with the D800).  And the Leica S, of course, only has a single focus point.  On the canon, Nikon, and Leica S bodies, focus & recompose presented/presents no problems for me at all; the overwhelming majority of shots are in focus, even when full length portraits, the most challenging scenario for focus and recompose in my experience, I.e.., you focus on the eye and then have to swing the lens way down to get a full body shot.  With the Phase/Contax, I had about a 75% success rate with half-body focus and recompose; with full length shots, it was far far less, maybe 20%.

All of this leads me to wonder not whether something is *wrong* with Phase backs in a focus and recompose scenario, but whether there's something *different* with Phase backs that would dictate a different focus and recompose technique than with most other cameras.

Of course, correlation isn't causation.  That is, the commonality may not be Phase backs' performance in a focus and recompose scenario, but maybe instead there's something similar about the Contax body and the XF body dictating a different focus and recompose technique than with other bodies...

[NickT]

"Lightroom affords the exact same image quality as can be had using Hasselblad’s Phocus software." Is there anything at all to back that up, other than they had access to the code?

I haven't read the review but in my experience Phocus produces a *much* better file than lightroom.

[digitalBerg]

I haven't read the review but in my experience Phocus produces a *much* better file than lightroom.

Much is a big word, and i cant disagree, but the difference isnt that big.

The article is spot on. My XF system is on its way to Danmark as we speak.. For what? Focus issues!!

[michaelclark]

Edmund -

Thanks for posting a link to the review and comparison. I tried to be as balanced as possible so that both companies could learn from it.

As for the AF issues on the XF. I have talked with several other photographers that have worked extensively with the XF, some who we all know of and have seen his images, and they all said it was nearly worthless in use. I found the same when I tested it out. If some folks have much better AF with their XF samples then that is worrying. If the AF was as good as the marketing materials suggest then I would have purchased the XF.

As for Phocus vs. Lightroom, I did do a few sample tests working up images in both software platforms. I didn't see any huge differences but I will have to do that test again after reading the comments here.

As I said in the end of the comparison, both platforms have issues that have to be overcome to create stellar images. Hopefully one of the companies can make a camera that solves these issues.

Cheers, Michael Clark

www.michaelclarkphoto.com

Another review. As usual, the Hassy's screen and the XF's focus get skewered, while XF build quality and Hassy True Focus get complimented.

More interestingly, the author finds differences in the file quality. As C1 is usually stellar, and the chips identical, I get the impression that Phase's profile for the 50C may need improving - a bad profile will explode noise. Or else the author had a very bad Phase sample - or an extremely good Sony chip in the Hasselblad.

As concerns the AF of the Phase, I think the company should really fix the firmware rather than keep explaining that reviewers are incapable or biased. There is no reason to think the new hardware is less good than the competition, but there are simply too many credible reports to write off from competent users who find the XF not focusing well enough - while very many are customers are clearly content. Maybe there is some sort of gremlin which affects some cameras and not others.

http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4757

Edmund

[Doug Peterson]

Edmund -

Thanks for posting a link to the review and comparison. I tried to be as balanced as possible so that both companies could learn from it.

As for the AF issues on the XF. I have talked with several other photographers that have worked extensively with the XF, some who we all know of and have seen his images, and they all said it was nearly worthless in use. I found the same when I tested it out. If some folks have much better AF with their XF samples then that is worrying. If the AF was as good as the marketing materials suggest then I would have purchased the XF.

As for Phocus vs. Lightroom, I did do a few sample tests working up images in both software platforms. I didn't see any huge differences but I will have to do that test again after reading the comments here.

As I said in the end of the comparison, both platforms have issues that have to be overcome to create stellar images. Hopefully one of the companies can make a camera that solves these issues.

Cheers, Michael Clark

www.michaelclarkphoto.com

If you're ever in New York I'd love to meet up with you for additional testing.

I don't know what's up with the body you tested, or how your preferred techniques might not be meshing with the body. All I know is I've now worked with literally hundreds of photographers testing the XF and your comments of the XF focus being "nearly worthless" don't match up at all with that experience. The XF focus is fast, precise, and works well in situations previous medium format bodies fail miserably at.

[michaelclark]

For those that are interested, before I did the Phase One XF vs. Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi comparison, I also wrote up an extensive review of the H5D 50c WiFi on my blog as well. Here is the link:

http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4601

Cheers, Michael

[michaelclark]

Doug -

Thanks for the offer. That certainly wasn't my experience. But with such a short time with the camera there could have been other issues. Apparently I wasn't the only one who had issues with the AF on the XF from reading the above posts.

I am not am not sure when I will be out in NYC next. I'd love to take you up on that offer.

Alternate question for you: Does Phase One ever ship out cameras to photographers to try out for a few days? A few Phase One dealers said I could rent it and try it out at $1500/day. Hasselblad sent me a loaner camera free of charge with two lenses and three batteries for 5 days and paid shipping both ways. I couldn't find any Phase dealers that would offer a similar loaner. Because Hasselblad sent me one for 5 days it really allowed me to test out the camera throughly before buying which is something that is very difficult to figure out in a half day with a dealer. Just thought I'd ask.

Cheers, Michael

If you're ever in New York I'd love to meet up with you for additional testing.

I don't know what's up with the body you tested, or how your preferred techniques might not be meshing with the body. All I know is I've now worked with literally hundreds of photographers testing the XF and your comments of the XF focus being "nearly worthless" don't match up at all with that experience. The XF focus is fast, precise, and works well in situations previous medium format bodies fail miserably at.

[Theodoros]

Much is a big word, and i cant disagree, but the difference isnt that big.

The difference is big... more than a stop of clear DR advantage and sharper too with Phocus when trying my CF-39MS, but it was the same with my ex-528c too....

[digitalBerg]

The difference is big... more than a stop of clear DR advantage and sharper too with Phocus when trying my CF-39MS, but it was the same with my ex-528c too....

Really? Didnt know that. I have used both phocus and LR with H4D-40 and H3DII-50...

[Theodoros]

Really? Didnt know that. I have used both phocus and LR with H4D-40 and H3DII-50...

Try again with a high contrast scene... it is the same with everybody....