My thoughts on the new PhaseOne XF (what are yours?)

[JV]

The XF is a  quality product, specifically designed for the needs of the existing customerbase;

Very accurate statement IMO.  Although the XF appears to be very good, I don't believe it will convince many Hasselblad or Leica users to switch...

The only issue I have seen is all the P+ backs not being able to use this great platform, and that's a big miss by Phase One, i.e. if they think those folks are all going to jump to a new 160/260 etc to use the camera.  I don't see that happening. 

+1.  Extremely shortsighted from Phase One.  Similar to the previous cross grade program which actually drove people away from Phase.  Equally stupid is their unwillingness to support other MF suppliers with Capture One.

[Steve Hendrix]

Very accurate statement IMO.  Although the XF appears to be very good, I don't believe it will convince many Hasselblad or Leica users to switch...

+1.  Extremely shortsighted from Phase One.  Similar to the previous cross grade program which actually drove people away from Phase.  Equally stupid is their unwillingness to support other MF suppliers with Capture One.

By other medium format makers, I presume you mean full tethered support for Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica? I would be interested in your explaination of how Phase One, by not being "stupid", would benefit from this?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

[BernardLanguillier]

By other medium format makers, I presume you mean full tethered support for Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica? I would be interested in your explaination of how Phase One, by not being "stupid", would benefit from this?

For the same reason that Phaseone has, until now, adopted an open policy by supporting the usage of other backs on the Phase one platform and vice versa?

Openness favors the overall health of a segment by increasing confidence in its future and encouraging the participation of value adding third parties.

Besides, it would generate additional cash because C1 would be pretty certain to capture a majority share among Pentax and Hassy owners.

Cheers,
Bernard

[torger]

I've worked in many companies and business people are generally very afraid of openness. There are exceptions, but in general lock in and close out is the strategy. It's the safe way, noone's going to blame your business strategy, except for a few of us nuts on the net perhaps.

Many of the newer internet companies represent the other way, with lots of openness. On the other hand they generally aim for selling the whole company with a large user base to Google rather than to generate profit.

If I had the power at Phase One I think I'd actually continue to keep Hassy, Pentax and Leica out of C1. I don't think they would gain from letting them in. The thing is that I think C1 is a major aspect of why users choose Phase One instead of say Hassy whose Phocus is fine but feels like it's 15 year old software. I haven't held the new XF but I suspect Hassy still has the better camera body. Letting Pentax in and allowing for direct side-by-side comparisons would just show which incredible value there is in that camera.

It would be different if the MFD competitors would be selling in huge volumes so you could actually make money by selling more C1 copies, but it's not that way. There are too few MFD cameras out there to make any significant revenue on software.

[ciccio]

just had the camera today on hand...
confirmed albatros for rich amateur.
outdated ,and only fancy  gadgets coming from portable phone technologies.
nothing related to change the world of photography.
best.

[Hywel]

Besides, it would generate additional cash because C1 would be pretty certain to capture a majority share among Pentax and Hassy owners.

I've been saying this for years. I'd buy C1 Pro today if it supported Hasselblad files. I personally don't need it to tether, I'm just in the market for a one-stop shop raw processor. Aperture is discontinued, Phocus doesn't do local adjustments, LR is modal and I hate its interface. C1 Pro is nice, and delivers leading image quality. But I can't use it. 

So... Phase are actually telling me they don't want me as a customer, by not supporting my camera in the one of their products in which I am currently interested. This seems short-sighted to me. The Phase hardware is never going to explode onto the mass market, but C1 Pro is a world class bit of software being deliberately ham-strung and prevented from become the de facto standard for Pro raw processing.

Cheers, Hywel.

[torger]

So... Phase are actually telling me they don't want me as a customer

They do, just ditch that Hasselblad and get a Phase One XF instead!

What you say just convince me more that they should lock out Hasselblad. Having the best raw converter can matter more than having the best camera when it comes to selling the complete system.

Getting say 50 current Hasselblad camera owners buying C1 will be less worth than getting one single new MFD shooter buy a Phase One camera system instead of Hassy/Leica/Pentax because C1 is better than Phocus/Lightroom.

It would of course be different if there were 100,000 Hasselblad users out there, but the MFD user base is tiny small.

[george2787]

I would love it if phase decided to add support for other camera makers, in fact the 645Z would be a nice option for me, but I understand phase wants people to buy their products and in my case I've already paid c1 to use with canon.

I don't se people bashing Pentax because their software is sub par, I don't see hasselblad users calling them stupid because their software is outdated (alhough color is nice and tethering is one of the best), and still here we are saying Phase should open their software based on our needs.

That said, I don't agree with Phase's pricing strategy, or to put it on other words, doesn't fit my budget right now and maybe never will and the solution is as simple as don't buying it, same as I don't buy into hasselblad because I don't like their software or pentax because it won't tether. At the end of the day ironically the best system for my needs/budget is a canon system that trades super high quality over versatility, tethers well to capture one and gets the job done, when in need for the extra pixels rent a phase and keep using the same workflow.

[george2787]

They do, just ditch that Hasselblad and get a Phase One XF instead!

What you say just convince me more that they should lock out Hasselblad. Having the best raw converter can matter more than having the best camera when it comes to selling the complete system.

Getting say 50 current Hasselblad camera owners buying C1 will be less worth than getting one single new MFD shooter buy a Phase One camera system instead of Hassy/Leica/Pentax because C1 is better than Phocus/Lightroom.

It would of course be different if there were 100,000 Hasselblad users out there, but the MFD user base is tiny small.

I didn't want to use this argument but since torguer started it... 

I would bet most of the people that want the 645z or H supported have a c1 license for their canon/nikon setups, so opening won't bring that many license sales.

[eronald]

They do, just ditch that Hasselblad and get a Phase One XF instead!

What you say just convince me more that they should lock out Hasselblad. Having the best raw converter can matter more than having the best camera when it comes to selling the complete system.

I've looked at the Phase XF yesterday. It's a nice product, but while C1 is certainly superior to Phocus, few Hassy users will change over - the two cameras don't have similar ergonomics IMHO. It's like the difference between an SUV and a sedan. Both are good, but different. The sedan is not going to go up a muddy slope.

Before you can convert the Raw you have to take the picture. And that is a split second job when imaging people; it depends a lot on how you like the camera.

Anyway, one can use C1 with a Hassy - just stick a Phase back on the Hassy

Edmund

[synn]

Selling a thousand C1P licenses to existing hassy/ pentax owners would bring in less profits than converting a single one of them in to the phase platform. It's simple economics.

Also, I agree with the poster above. Hassy and pentax owners should be breathing down the necks of those two so that their software's catch up to C2P, rather than chastising phase for not catering to them.

[eronald]

Selling a thousand C1P licenses to existing hassy/ pentax owners would bring in less profits than converting a single one of them in to the phase platform. It's simple economics.

Also, I agree with the poster above. Hassy and pentax owners should be breathing down the necks of those two so that their software's catch up to C2P, rather than chastising phase for not catering to them.

Synn, the software licenses get renewed annually with no dealer margins. And every new copy you sell costs nothing additional to make. That's what makes software so profitable.

Edmund

[synn]

That's what makes software profitable for software centric companies. Phase is not one of them. The software for them  is a means to sell hardware, which is commonly known as the Apple model for printing money.

[sc_john]

By other medium format makers, I presume you mean full tethered support for Hasselblad, Pentax, Leica? I would be interested in your explaination of how Phase One, by not being "stupid", would benefit from this?


Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration

In my case, it would keep me more engaged with Phase One, and enhance the possibility of future business. I use IQ 260 with tech cam, and I love the back!!! Since I wanted flexibility to also use MF-SLR body, I added a DF645+. However, after two tries with 645DF+, I finally walked away out of frustration with poor back-body communications (lock-ups, etc), focus issues and waiting for new body. I sold my 645DF+ body and lenses. Loved the lenses, despised the body. After 6 months or so without a MF-SLR body for IQ260, I thought I would try Pentax 645z. I figured "What the hell", a 645z trial would cost me same or less than trying new Phase One body whenever it came out. In the few months I have owned it, the 645z has proven to be a great camera for my needs. It has never locked-up; it's AF is VERY good; its tilting screen allows me to use it as a WLF. Plus, for the price of XF body alone I now have alternate platform with CMOS 50mp sensor. Only issue for me is Phase One's "lock out' of Pentax from C1 Pro. While I vastly prefer C1 Pro to other options, a lot of folks work very successfully with Adobe Lightroom, and I figure that I can also.

Would I consider trying XF for IQ260 in the future? Quite possibly, once I observed 12 months or so of experience from early adopters... especially given my regard for S/K lenses. However, as I drift further away from Phase One by investing time in learning alternative raw conversion/workflow... it becomes less likely. (Note:This also assumes Pentax will continue with development of their new line of digital lenses that are quite good.)

I am not trying to flame Phase One, Steve. The company makes the best digital backs out there, IMHO. My experience with customer support for my IQ 260 has also been splendid. Will I continue to use IQ 260... I sure will. Will I be tempted to try XF body... less and less, as time goes on. I would also note that I don't view the decision on C1 Pro lock-out of other manufacturers as "stupid". It is a business decision, albeit a defensive one.

John 

[eronald]

I think a better argument could be made for opening the new body to P+ backs - no forum user is going to find that suggestion stupid

Edmund

[Paul2660]

The issue with C1, is users either love or hate it.  I love it and use it 100% on Phase raw files.  I like the workflow, the fact it offers a session mode, (thank you Phase) and has an very powerful local adjustment tool, which is to me offers more control than LR does.  The fact that the 50c cannot be used by C1, took it right off the list for me even though it's 10K less and at first was as much as 15K less than a similar Phase back with the same chip.  And with a new back plate, plug right into my Arca.  

I use a tech camera with Phase One 100% so the LCC process is very important.  Phase did an amazing job on the 50MP CMOS files in how they recovered from huge amounts of color shift (red) and saturation loss on shifts of 8mm or more.  

However the cost of entry to Phase One's 50MP solution is too expensive for me even with a trade in due to the fact it's a 1:3 crop and that's too much for my work.  If the chip was like the old P45+ and 1:1 it would have been a totally different story for me.  

My hope is that with more 35mm 50MP cameras besides the new excellent Canon offerings coming, maybe Phase One will re-evaluate their current price points on  "edit" 50MP CMOS, but I am no holding my breath.

Paul Caldwell

[eronald]

The issue with C1, is users either love or hate it.  I love it and use it 100% on Phase raw files.  I like the workflow, the fact it offers a session mode, (thank you Phase) and has an very powerful local adjustment tool, which is to me offers more control than LR does.  The fact that the 50c cannot be used by C1, took it right off the list for me even though it's 10K less and at first was as much as 15K less than a similar Phase back with the same chip.  And with a new back plate, plug right into my Arca. 

I use a tech camera with Phase One 100% so the LCC process is very important.  Phase did an amazing job on the 50MP CMOS files in how they recovered from huge amounts of color shift (red) and saturation loss on shifts of 8mm or more. 

However the cost of entry to Phase One's 50MP solution is too expensive for me even with a trade in due to the fact it's a 1:3 crop and that's too much for my work.  If the chip was like the old P45+ and 1:1 it would have been a totally different story for me. 

My hope is that with more 35mm 50MP cameras besides the new excellent Canon offerings coming, maybe Phase One will re-evaluate their current price points on CMOS, but I am no holding my breath.

Paul Caldwell

It's pretty clear that any lager chip will be premium-priced at release. Especially since the Pentax seems calibrated for the current size chip, and so there will be less downwards price pressure at that size sensor.

Edmund

[Paul2660]

It's pretty clear that any lager chip will be premium-priced at release. Especially since the Pentax seems calibrated for the current size chip, and so there will be less downwards price pressure at that size sensor.

Edmund

I meant to say current CMOS, sorry.  I edited the post to reflect that.  I fully (but sadly) agree when fully frame CMOS comes from Phase it will come at a premium.

Paul

[BernardLanguillier]

Especially since the Pentax seems calibrated for the current size chip, and so there will be less downwards price pressure at that size sensor.

I don't think they are. The only lens they had that was only compatible with their current small sensor was the new 25mm f4 and they withdrew it very quickly.

To me it is a clear sign that they are considering larger sensors too.

I frankly don't think that Sony would bother developing a larger CMOS if Pentax isn't on board.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

I don't think they are. The only lens they had that was only compatible with their current small sensor was the new 25mm f4 and they withdrew it very quickly.

To me it is a clear sign that they are considering larger sensors too.

I frankly don't think that Sony would bother developing a larger CMOS if Pentax isn't on board.

Cheers,
Bernard

 Are Pentax still marketing as a landscape camera in Japan? I think knowing who is marketing to the "marriage" market might provide a clue as to how the market will be going.


 I think the marginal investment for a scaled up from 35mm chip is minimal, once you have the cell library, process, and stitching setup. Dalsa billed the guy who wanted a 4x5 about 200K for design+run+integration, if I remember rightly. At current Phase luxury resort room prices, that sort of money is quickly amortized
 On the other hand, Sony seem to be going through a huge technology transition now, with  BSI and stacked chips, and I don't now whether they could scale up their new tech: They may have new tooling and thermal constraint issues that prevent scaling up.  But that might provide them with motivation for amortizing the old crap before they retire it.  

Edmund