Phase One XF-100 initial/rolling impressions

[Doug Peterson]

I will say that the Leica S 007 appears to have about a 1 stop advantage at higher ISO over the XF100, at least with only the default noise reduction in Lightroom/C1 (and their defaults may well be different). At a glance and without any real testing at all, ISO 1600 is about my comfort limit with the 007 (I'll go to 3200 in a pinch) whereas ISO 800 is about my comfort limit with the XF (I'll go to 1600 in a pinch, as with the images above). 

Redo this evaluation by comparing prints rather than looking at 100% and you'll find this flips the other direction. One of the advantages of 100mp is that if you're printing "medium" sized prints like 40" wide you'll notice all the grain/noise is around the size of the ink dots and therefore basically not visible. Since the 007 cropped to a 4:3 is around 1/3rd the resolution it needs to be significantly better at 100% on screen to have the same detail/tonality/noise-rendition as the IQ3 100mp to come out ahead in an actual print.

Viewing a 100mp image at 100% is appropriate only if you plan on making very large prints.

Also play around with noise reduction in C1. I find the defaults too harsh. I don't mind grain if it is even, homogenous and uniform in color, rather than clumpy or colorful.

[william]

Yep, that seems likely (hence my last paragraph of my previous post).

Redo this evaluation by comparing prints rather than looking at 100% and you'll find this flips the other direction. One of the advantages of 100mp is that if you're printing "medium" sized prints like 40" wide you'll notice all the grain/noise is around the size of the ink dots and therefore basically not visible. Since the 007 cropped to a 4:3 is around 1/3rd the resolution it needs to be significantly better at 100% on screen to have the same detail/tonality/noise-rendition as the IQ3 100mp to come out ahead in an actual print.

Viewing a 100mp image at 100% is appropriate only if you plan on making very large prints.

Also play around with noise reduction in C1. I find the defaults too harsh. I don't mind grain if it is even, homogenous and uniform in color, rather than clumpy or colorful.

[narikin]

I got the XF camera with my IQ100, and basically don't use it. It's insanely noisy for my needs (working on the street) and that mirror clunk is far, FAR too loud/ too much shock. Of course, ymmv - maybe you do landscapes and use mirror lock up on a tripod?

Yes, it's got some clever software bits on it, (auto focus stacking, for example) but I'm happier using the IQ on my tech camera, with tech lenses that don't need to be compromised designs with deep retrofocus to accommodate that large mirror box. I've left XF in the drawer for months now, and doubt it's got 200 activations on it. Sorry, I feel rather guilty about this, but it's just an ancient design of camera that doesn't belong in the 21C.

Next step will be on chip AF phase detection for MF, but then Phase will be stuck with a lens line designed for SLR style bodies, rather than mirrorless ones. Sigh. Maybe their Alpa tie-up is the future proofing of this inevitable step?

[douglevy]

Adding my .02

I spent yesterday with the IQ100 for my H5X (I usually shoot Credo40 but we are making 10' prints). And while my experience previous has been limited to a p25+ and my Credo, the files are very, very impressive. The only negative that I can come up with is that in 5 hours or so of shooting we burned through 3.5 batteries (I was shooting untethered because working conditions didn't allow for a laptop). Up to 800 ISO is exremely clean, and 1600 is totally usable for 90% of my needs. I didn't test higher than that because there wasn't time/the need.

Anyway, just thought I'd add that.

-Doug

[william]

If the question was directed at me (the OP):

No, I don't do exclusively tripod/landscape/mirror up work.  I've shot a full range of styles with the XF thus far: landscape, portrait, street, sometimes handheld, sometimes on tripod depending on the circumstance. 

To each his/her own, but I don't find the shutter noise or mirror slap to be particularly obstrusive at all.  But: because I don't particularly like digital non-rangefinder mirrorless cameras, I generally don't use them (exception being the Sony RX1, which I do have and use but I've never bonded with the electronic viewfinder-only method), and therefore may not be as conditioned to the near-silent operation of those cameras. 

(I do continue to use film Leica M gear and a had digital M body for a while, but rangefinders still offer an optical viewfinder.  What I don't like about mirrorless is the lack of an optical viewfinder).

I got the XF camera with my IQ100, and basically don't use it. It's insanely noisy for my needs (working on the street) and that mirror clunk is far, FAR too loud/ too much shock. Of course, ymmv - maybe you do landscapes and use mirror lock up on a tripod?

Yes, it's got some clever software bits on it, (auto focus stacking, for example) but I'm happier using the IQ on my tech camera, with tech lenses that don't need to be compromised designs with deep retrofocus to accommodate that large mirror box. I've left XF in the drawer for months now, and doubt it's got 200 activations on it. Sorry, I feel rather guilty about this, but it's just an ancient design of camera that doesn't belong in the 21C.

Next step will be on chip AF phase detection for MF, but then Phase will be stuck with a lens line designed for SLR style bodies, rather than mirrorless ones. Sigh. Maybe their Alpa tie-up is the future proofing of this inevitable step?

[BernardLanguillier]

I got the XF camera with my IQ100, and basically don't use it. It's insanely noisy for my needs (working on the street) and that mirror clunk is far, FAR too loud/ too much shock. Of course, ymmv - maybe you do landscapes and use mirror lock up on a tripod?

Yes, it's got some clever software bits on it, (auto focus stacking, for example) but I'm happier using the IQ on my tech camera, with tech lenses that don't need to be compromised designs with deep retrofocus to accommodate that large mirror box. I've left XF in the drawer for months now, and doubt it's got 200 activations on it. Sorry, I feel rather guilty about this, but it's just an ancient design of camera that doesn't belong in the 21C.

Next step will be on chip AF phase detection for MF, but then Phase will be stuck with a lens line designed for SLR style bodies, rather than mirrorless ones. Sigh. Maybe their Alpa tie-up is the future proofing of this inevitable step?

I was also not very impressed by the XF mirror slap to the extend that I immediately ranked the camera as being unusable outside controlled environments. This was striking compared to the butter smooth refined noise of the D810's mirror/shutter mechanism. Don't if there is any impact on images sharpness though.

I was really close to pulling the trigger at some point but this was one of the elements that helped me decide against spending such a big pile of cash.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

Hey Bernard, people have been doing AF with the Otus on the A7R2, using the AF M adapter.

Edmund

I was also not very impressed by the XF mirror slap to the extend that I immediately ranked the camera as being unusable outside controlled environments. This was striking compared to the butter smooth refined noise of the D810's mirror/shutter mechanism. Don't if there is any impact on images sharpness though.

I was really close to pulling the trigger at some point but this was one of the elements that helped me decide against spending such a big pile of cash.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Hey Bernard, people have been doing AF with the Otus on the A7R2, using the AF M adapter.

Interesting, but how to you mount an Otus on that adapter if I may ask?

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

Interesting, but how to you mount an Otus on that adapter if I may ask?

Cheers,
Bernard

Probably with a Nikon to Leica M ring.
Time for your morning coffee.



Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

Probably with a Nikon to Leica M ring.
Time for your morning coffee.

Indeed!

Cheers,
Bernard

[narikin]

I was also not very impressed by the XF mirror slap to the extend that I immediately ranked the camera as being unusable outside controlled environments. This was striking compared to the butter smooth refined noise of the D810's mirror/shutter mechanism. Don't if there is any impact on images sharpness though.

I was really close to pulling the trigger at some point but this was one of the elements that helped me decide against spending such a big pile of cash.

well that's an unfair comparison - a (relatively) small 35mm mirror to a much larger MF one. A fairer comparison might be the Pentax 645Z camera to the XF. (Or Hasselblad, or older Mamiya 645, Bronica, etc)

I have the Canon 5DSR, and was amazed how quiet that mirror is too, much better than the old 5D, but wouldn't critique the XF based on that comparison.

That said, I too remain disappointed at how noisy it is, and agree its only use is limited to situations where that does not matter..
 

[camgarner]

I have been using the XF-100 for a few months now and I find it the best camera I have used to date but I use it almost exclusively for landscapes/seascapes.  I should point out I tend to print very large so my needs are very specific.  I never considered it for street photography!  Given the weight of the system and the fact that I frequently use the 40-80 lens I can't even imagine using it without a tripod.  My backup camera is the D810 which is versatile enough for me for almost all applications. It would be nice to have one camera for all my needs but I haven't found one yet.

[william]

I can actually handhold the XF-100 pretty well for a reasonably long amount of time, especially with the 80mm or 110mm.  Less well, although still possible, with the 120mm. Not likely to do so with the 40-80 zoom, though: that thing's a beast!  Then again, I've done handheld with the Leica S and 30-90 zoom -- which is also a beast -- and those came out pretty well.  (I used to do handheld travel shooting (Ghana, Cuba, London) with my Contax 645 when I only wanted to take one "serious" camera with me).

That said, the XF would not be my optimal tool of choice for most handheld random street shooting anyway: all else aside, that much $ hanging off my shoulder in a random public location would probably make me very uncomfortable. 

I have been using the XF-100 for a few months now and I find it the best camera I have used to date but I use it almost exclusively for landscapes/seascapes.  I should point out I tend to print very large so my needs are very specific.  I never considered it for street photography!  Given the weight of the system and the fact that I frequently use the 40-80 lens I can't even imagine using it without a tripod.  My backup camera is the D810 which is versatile enough for me for almost all applications. It would be nice to have one camera for all my needs but I haven't found one yet.

[gagemanning]

I'll way my 2 cents.  I'm definitely on the prosumer side of things.  I've used various cameras in the past 5 years and moved to medium format about 3 years ago with the purchase of a Leica S.  I switched to P1 last year.  When the IQ3-100mp came out, I was fortunate to have one in my hands within 10 days of it being announced.  Without question, it's the best IQ I've ever seen.  I have no problems shooting up to ISO 6400 (I personally don't mind noise in my images).  When shooting people (mostly my 5yo daughter), I mostly use the waist level finder.  I find it very enjoyable to use and also more comfortable.  I have no problems taking shots handheld with shutter speeds around 1/120 of a second.  I have not found the mirror "clunk" to increase the risk of loss of sharpness.  I would agree though, the mirror noise is very loud!  I don't like to self promote but I have many pics on my blog using the IQ3-100mp.  The website is http://www.gagecaudell.com/category/phase-one-iq3-100/ .  Last, I like a "retro" look to my images and thus I use a lot of film presets.

Gage


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BernardLanguillier]

well that's an unfair comparison - a (relatively) small 35mm mirror to a much larger MF one. A fairer comparison might be the Pentax 645Z camera to the XF. (Or Hasselblad, or older Mamiya 645, Bronica, etc)

I have the Canon 5DSR, and was amazed how quiet that mirror is too, much better than the old 5D, but wouldn't critique the XF based on that comparison.

That said, I too remain disappointed at how noisy it is, and agree its only use is limited to situations where that does not matter..

Agreed, it's probably impossible to reach 35mm level with MF DSLRs, but my feeling was that the gap was larger than I expected.

It probably isn't a problem when using the XF in a pro env.

My hope would be for P1 to release a high end EVF with good manual focus aids (this would become an manual focus camera obviously). This would remove the noise issue (but may replace it by a sensor heat/battery life one?).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Paul2660]

Phase One may go mirrorless/EVF, but I will be surprised if they do as it would mean all new glass, or at least an adapter, plus the current LS glass, has quite a bit of weight and a mirrorless body, may not integrate well.  The marketplace would be quite small, smaller than traditional Medium format digital is now, and at Phase One's current price point, again I would be surprised to see it. 

EVF, that will be Sony, or possibly Fuji as they have the tech in place now and with their pricing model, will reach a vastly larger market. 

Phase does have a solution, with the A series, that with a CMOS back, does allow for quite a bit of flexibility.  The Alpa TC, is much lighter than a XF body, and you are using the copal shutter, which is basically soundless.  Sure it's a very manual solution, but in my case Live View is pretty much always a slower and more manual solution, not to be hand held.  Add the iPhone connection and you have a nice package, again costly.  But the parts may be cheaper to buy off th used market and put together. 

As for the mirror slap, I too had hoped to see a more modern sound to shutter/mirror noise of the XF, but I really don't believe too much changed here from the DF or DF+, I would be surprised if the shutter is anything different and the mirror more than likely the same parts.  Phase went for a lot more tech around the firing, i.e vibration reduction mode in combination with the seismograph tech to monitor vibrations.  This tech does WORK, and works very well, but as many have noted, it doesn't reduce any of the noise of the shutter/mirror combination. 

One last note, is that if you are using a LS lens, and use Live view, then yes, you can reduce the noise quite a bit, and you can do this hand held.

With the IQ100, not sure if this is the case in the 50MP CMOS, when you go to Live view, you have raised the mirror and shutter to be viewed on the back's LCD, thus when you fire the shutter, all you fire is the LS shutter of the lens, and this is VERY quite indeed.  I use this solution all the time with the XF and it is a great option. 

Paul C

[eronald]

The Rolleiflex was a fairly flexible and silent press camera - I wonder why electronic MF has become so huge.


Edmund

I'll way my 2 cents.  I'm definitely on the prosumer side of things.  I've used various cameras in the past 5 years and moved to medium format about 3 years ago with the purchase of a Leica S.  I switched to P1 last year.  When the IQ3-100mp came out, I was fortunate to have one in my hands within 10 days of it being announced.  Without question, it's the best IQ I've ever seen.  I have no problems shooting up to ISO 6400 (I personally don't mind noise in my images).  When shooting people (mostly my 5yo daughter), I mostly use the waist level finder.  I find it very enjoyable to use and also more comfortable.  I have no problems taking shots handheld with shutter speeds around 1/120 of a second.  I have not found the mirror "clunk" to increase the risk of loss of sharpness.  I would agree though, the mirror noise is very loud!  I don't like to self promote but I have many pics on my blog using the IQ3-100mp.  The website is http://www.gagecaudell.com/category/phase-one-iq3-100/ .  Last, I like a "retro" look to my images and thus I use a lot of film presets.

Gage


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Rob C]

The Rolleiflex was a fairly flexible and silent press camera - I wonder why electronic MF has become so huge.


Edmund

To help justify the pricing? More for your buck?  ;-)

I sometimes wonder how long this format will continue to make sense, regardless of expendable income; I get the impression that more and more advertising is going into more and more less demanding mediums i.e. Internet exposure, where pretty much anything goes, and watcher expectations and realisations are so variable and out of producer control. Maybe all computer screens should come self-calbrating. I wish. I saw my own website on my monitor at the same desk and time as my daughter watched in on her laptop Mac: on her device, skin highlights all looked terribly blown, and I'd thought Mac was a photographer-friendly company institution

Rob C

[narikin]

Phase One may go mirrorless/EVF, but I will be surprised if they do as it would mean all new glass, or at least an adapter, plus the current LS glass, has quite a bit of weight and a mirrorless body, may not integrate well.  The marketplace would be quite small, smaller than traditional Medium format digital is now, and at Phase One's current price point, again I would be surprised to see it. 

EVF, that will be Sony, or possibly Fuji as they have the tech in place now and with their pricing model, will reach a vastly larger market. 

Phase does have a solution, with the A series, that with a CMOS back, does allow for quite a bit of flexibility.  The Alpa TC, is much lighter than a XF body, and you are using the copal shutter, which is basically soundless.  Sure it's a very manual solution, but in my case Live View is pretty much always a slower and more manual solution, not to be hand held.  Add the iPhone connection and you have a nice package, again costly.  But the parts may be cheaper to buy off th used market and put together. 

As for the mirror slap, I too had hoped to see a more modern sound to shutter/mirror noise of the XF, but I really don't believe too much changed here from the DF or DF+, I would be surprised if the shutter is anything different and the mirror more than likely the same parts.  Phase went for a lot more tech around the firing, i.e vibration reduction mode in combination with the seismograph tech to monitor vibrations.  This tech does WORK, and works very well, but as many have noted, it doesn't reduce any of the noise of the shutter/mirror combination. 

One last note, is that if you are using a LS lens, and use Live view, then yes, you can reduce the noise quite a bit, and you can do this hand held.

With the IQ100, not sure if this is the case in the 50MP CMOS, when you go to Live view, you have raised the mirror and shutter to be viewed on the back's LCD, thus when you fire the shutter, all you fire is the LS shutter of the lens, and this is VERY quite indeed.  I use this solution all the time with the XF and it is a great option. 

Paul C

Good points Paul, though you are missing the Alpa FPS, which has a Focal Plane Shutter, and doesn't need any manual cocking. Both that and the TC are very travel friendly. Sure there are focus issues, which could easily be addressed with an EVF using the HDMI out on the new CMOS backs - the tech is all there, but they haven't put the pieces together yet, which is frustrating.  Tech cameras have an excellent range of lenses, not compromised for a large mirror, etc.

Good to be reminded of the XF's live view shooting with LS, but of course Live View isn't that great, once you have seen quality HDMI output, it's very hard to go back to old Live View. It's that dramatic a difference!

[torger]

I don't think tech lenses would be a part of a future mirrorless system.

A modern MF mirrorless camera would need autofocus and you need large aperture. Tech lenses with f/5.6 and f/4 doesn't fit there. I also don't think that if they actually make a new integrated system they would allow the type of sensor-lens incompatibilities we see now. Sure they could have LCC integrated into the body, but at least do away with the crosstalk.

And who needs movements? I like to have it, but we're too few. The future is cropping and keystoning, made feasible with really high resolution sensors and sharp lenses.

Much more likely would be an enlarged 135 mirrorless body, shorter flange distance than an SLR but still much longer than a tech cam, and no movements. Use it with current lens lineups via adapter and then later a few dedicated lenses arrives, wide angle first as it's there you can make quality gains.