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

[JoeKitchen]

I know this topic has been beat to death, but, as I see it, it could be great for Phase that they did not open up the system to the P+ backs, or it could be a nice kick to the face for those with P+ backs.  For, it is probably the latter.  

I mainly shoot architecture, but would like to get into more hotel work, which could involve lifestyle.  Having an SLR style camera with fast lenses could be an advantage.  Also, I tend to usually want to shoot chest to waist height when working handheld, so a WLV is a plus too.  

However, trading in my P45+ and paying north of $30K just is not worth it, especially with C1 v8.  

When I first got my back using v6, anything above ISO 50 was not that good.  Now, with v8, ISO 100 is pretty damn clean and ISO 200 (possibly 400) is good enough for certain types of shots, especially after looking at what BC does with his high ISO files.  

I spent this morning testing out my P45+ against my girlfriend's IQ260 on her DF+ with an 80mm lens.  No lights, just bounce cards.  To be honest, after spending some time pixel peeing, all ISOs are very similar in terms of noise, and, as BC would put it, the higher ISO P45+ files are very pretty.  

If Phase opened the camera down the road for P+ backs, that could get me.  However, for now, I think a 35mm DSLR is my best route for the rare occasion I may be asked to shoot lifestyle, even though many feel more computer than camera.  

[ciccio]

you are totally right i can t agree more...
they have done the total wrong step in the wrong direction....
the future is getting darker for phase.
best.

[eronald]

you are totally right i can t agree more...
they have done the total wrong step in the wrong direction....
the future is getting darker for phase.
best.

I'd say that they got suckered by not investing in sensor tech and camera tech when they had the time and money,  and by their only supplier Sony now making quite sure they couldn't move ahead too far. And also their predatory pricing gave them good stable numbers but a low market presence: A wide and deep customer pool gives a company much more leeway to adapt its product range.

Phase One is (barely) living proof that Intel are right when they say they need to obsolete their own products themselves as fast as possible so their competitors don't do it for them.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

I spent this morning testing out my P45+ against my girlfriend's IQ260 on her DF+ with an 80mm lens.

Wow... you found the only female owner of a phase one back in the world and convinced her to date you!

I am extremely double impressed!

Cheers,
Bernard

[synn]

Wow... you found the only female owner of a phase one back in the world and convinced her to date you!

I am extremely double impressed!

Cheers,
Bernard

Either Joe is dating Miss Aniela or there's more than one woman using Phase.
I'm guessing the latter.

[Willow Photography]

Either Joe is dating Miss Aniela or there's more than one woman using Phase.
I'm guessing the latter.

I think she mostly use Nikon D810.
But maybe she just is sponsored by Nikon and use Phase One. 

Who knows

[JoeKitchen]

Or maybe ... she mastered the art of lighting bottles and glasses, landed a job with international usage, which more than covered the cost of going MF, and said, "why not?"    

I appreciate the interest, however it is kind of weird you are fixated on my other half.  

Going back to the topic at hand, I would like to clarify that I think so long as you can work at base ISO or one stop above, MF produces the best results.  

ISO 200 is good too, especially with the new software, but at ISO 400, it starts to fall apart.  And from my tests I see no real difference in high ISO performance from my back to arguably the best current back that you can get your hands on.  

And, as of matter of fact, I like the look of the Kodak sensors more than the Dalsa ones too (straight out of camera).  

So, for me, spending north of $30K and trading in my great P45+ just to get a nice XF is not worth it.  At least not any time soon.  

[Paul2660]

Going back to the topic at hand, I would like to clarify that I think so long as you can work at base ISO or one stop above, MF produces the best results.  

ISO 200 is good too, especially with the new software, but at ISO 400, it starts to fall apart.  And from my tests I see no real difference in high ISO performance from my back to arguably the best current back that you can get your hands on.  

Well said, CCD likes light and as much as possible.    I would expect an S2 at iso 640 to look good with flash and strobe used to give enough light.    For that matter I would expect the same from any current Phase CCD also, as when the lighting is controlled the results can be excellent.  However it's when you need to push, without light, then the problems seem to arise. 

With the Phase chip I currently use, the IQ260, it's pretty pointless to take the chip past 200 as Joe states unless you are working either with controlled lighting or on a very bright naturally lit subject where your shadows will be given a good amount of light, or you have to bracket the exposures.  This issue will get much worse as the back starts to heat up, so in the summer time where I live CCD technology is very hard to use for extended periods of time.  Once the back gets hot, and it will get extremely hot to the touch in about 30 minutes or so if the sun is hitting it, then the extra amounts of noise are very hard to work with. 

You can easily push the base iso of 50 as much as 1.5 stops and still have an nice image.  However it often works out that it's better to over expose the image as much as 1 stop since the IQ260 can recover highlights better than most backs I have used.  But attempting to push a normally exposed iso 200 shot will not give anywhere near the same quality results.  If you use Sensor Plus, sure the image quality is excellent but so are many 16 to 20MP cameras on the market today. 

Using a tech camera and copal shutter makes the situation even more difficult since you can't use 1/3 or 1/2 shutter speeds and most copals I have can't shoot 1/125 or 1/250 instead most time they record 1/180 and 1/350 even 1/500th of a sec.  With a CCD, this can also can create issues as again the light available to the chip is key, so if the shutter won't give you 1/125 but instead 1/180 that may create enough noise to ruin a series.  Most times I need F11 or F8 plus 2 stops so moving wider than F8 is not really a good solution. Here the XF or any regular camera body is great since you have so many more shutter speeds to pick from.  The electronic shutter solutions out there there, both announced and shipping are really not much of an improvement to me but I have yet to really see many reviews of either the Arca FS or the Arca electronic leaf shutter.

With a CMOS back, the above issue is less troublesome since the chip will allow more leeway in post.  At least to my eyes. 

I love the look of the Dalsa chips, especially the blues.  The results I get without a CL-PL for skies with the Phase back are often more pleasing than what I received from other cameras.  But the added advantages I see with CMOS, say a Phase One IQ150 make it clear to me, that when and if Phase gets to a full frame or even 1:1 CMOS I will try to make the move, especially if the chip is more friendly with movements, unlike the current 50MP Sony.

Paul Caldwell

[Dshelly]

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.

If this were true, I don't believe that Phase would have made their software available for use with Canon and Nikon gear. Clearly, Phase is seeing some profit by offering their product to other brands. Wisely, though, they're not offering it to their direct competitors.

[synn]

They offer it to canon and Nikon users so that they can eventually upsell a phase camera to them. It's easier to do that than to convince hassy and now, pentax users.

[eronald]

If this were true, I don't believe that Phase would have made their software available for use with Canon and Nikon gear. Clearly, Phase is seeing some profit by offering their product to other brands. Wisely, though, they're not offering it to their direct competitors.

I would guess that Phase still have M$ as an investor, and supply raw conversion tech to them, which also gives them a financial lifeline.

Edmund

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,  Your weakening. You've gone from no way to at least not any time soon.

Next it will be, maybe in a few months.

Don't read the PR articles, read your eyes.  Glass smooth to me isn't pretty but hey, that's just me, but this image was pretty smooth.

I shot this with a S2, 640 iso, with 500 watts of quartz fresnel, very squeezed down barn doors,  through a piece of frosted glass, 80mm 125th of a second, f 2.4.


Since I owned contax lenses, the S2 lightly used (it looked new) costs less than the new phase One body and my camera came with a sensor.

800 iso, contax with wlf, p30+, 575 HMI, plus small tungsten fresnels.  80mm zeiss contax lens f4, 125th sec.



IMO

BC

Thanks BC, I should have clarified.  Not now, but, if they open the system to the P+ backs, I would consider just getting the camera body.  Especially if my work took me in the direction of needing to shoot lifestyle occasionally. 

(FYI, I would need more than just a new camera body to justify a new back.) 

Shooting architecture with a tech camera is very pleasing, and, as someone else put it, I forget the camera is really there.  I can just work.  Shooting lifestyle with a tech camera, not so easy.

By the way, any tips on how you process your files to be so nice? 

The ISO 200 and 400 files I shot yesterday I worked on a for a little while and got some decent results.  However, yours are very pretty.  (It could be I am too much of a pixel peeper though, which as an architectural photographer, is hard to let go of.) 

[JV]

If this were true, I don't believe that Phase would have made their software available for use with Canon and Nikon gear. Clearly, Phase is seeing some profit by offering their product to other brands. Wisely, though, they're not offering it to their direct competitors.

So you expect me to find it normal that Capture One supports Leica M, T, X, D, V, C, etc, probably soon also Q but deliberately refuses to support Leica S.

Sorry but as a Leica S, M, T (and soon Q) user I just don't get that... In my book that is shortsighted and narrow minded...

[ciccio]

100 % right
totally agree about s2
best.

[alatreille]

The ISO 200 and 400 files I shot yesterday I worked on a for a little while and got some decent results.  However, yours are very pretty.  (It could be I am too much of a pixel peeper though, which as an architectural photographer, is hard to let go of.) 

Which is a good way to be (IMO) as the majority of our clients are detail fanatics to.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

It seems that our friend BC makes good work with Leica and Lightroom. Would C1 support his tools he would be happy to stay with it...

Best regards
Erik

If this were true, I don't believe that Phase would have made their software available for use with Canon and Nikon gear. Clearly, Phase is seeing some profit by offering their product to other brands. Wisely, though, they're not offering it to their direct competitors.

[BernardLanguillier]

For well lit images I now prefer the conversions coming out of Iridient Developper anyway. So as a 645z owner I would not loose sleep because of non support in C1.

Using LR for previews and Iridient for conversions works reasonnably well from a workflow standpoint too.

The one tool that is still IMHO far superior with C1 is the shadow/highlight recovery, so I still use it for contrasty scenes.

Cheers,
Bernard