Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on June 02, 2015, 01:04:16 pm
-
Hi Guys,
http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2015/06/02/new-phaseone-xf-camera-body-announced/ (http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2015/06/02/new-phaseone-xf-camera-body-announced/)
Above you can find a link to my thoughts on the new PhaseOne XF Camera body. I think that it offers a number of great improvements, making it the most modern and integrated medium format digital camera body that has been made thus far.
I will be trying to get some hands on time with it very soon.
What do you think?
Best,
BH
-
Nice writeup!
-
Hi Brian,
Nice write up. I'm excited to see any totally new camera in the field and Phase should be commended for it. Quick take having only read the announcements and not seen in person is that its the self driving car of cameras - seems very intelligent. I'm sure we'll see lot's of software updates for it down the road.
Pluses:
WLF and 90 degree prism options - very nice to have choices.
High sync speed and built in profoto air
Shared battery - can save weight (and it may need it)
Excellent back to camera integration
Auto focus improvements sound promising - though I don't totally know what the Honeybee AF is capable of.
Minuses:
Cost
Weight - not a real problem for me but surprised this would be heavier.
Ergonomics - menus and screens don't replace dedicated switches for good ergonomics. Also not a fan or having to tilt the camera and my head to shoot portrait.
The XF looks like a real improvement over the DF+ and I wish Phase success with it. I'm biased, but I do still think the ergonomics of the Hy6 are hard to beat, especially with the rotating sensor of the Leaf AFi-ii series.
-
Minuses:
. . .
Ergonomics . . . Also not a fan or having to tilt the camera and my head to shoot portrait.
There only seems to be one hope for convenient verticals now that square formats are dead: combining a rotatable back with an EVF option. Maybe a rotatable, twistable EVF that could be used for both eye-level and waist-level operation. With the return of interchangeable VF's, this become a bit more feasible, at least as an option, and could also be nice for avoiding mirror slap.
-
+1
The XF is the best and most integrated 645 camera. The Hy6 still is the all over champion. Imo
Eduardo
Hi Brian,
Nice write up. I'm excited to see any totally new camera in the field and Phase should be commended for it. Quick take having only read the announcements and not seen in person is that its the self driving car of cameras - seems very intelligent. I'm sure we'll see lot's of software updates for it down the road.
Pluses:
WLF and 90 degree prism options - very nice to have choices.
High sync speed and built in profoto air
Shared battery - can save weight (and it may need it)
Excellent back to camera integration
Auto focus improvements sound promising - though I don't totally know what the Honeybee AF is capable of.
Minuses:
Cost
Weight - not a real problem for me but surprised this would be heavier.
Ergonomics - menus and screens don't replace dedicated switches for good ergonomics. Also not a fan or having to tilt the camera and my head to shoot portrait.
The XF looks like a real improvement over the DF+ and I wish Phase success with it. I'm biased, but I do still think the ergonomics of the Hy6 are hard to beat, especially with the rotating sensor of the Leaf AFi-ii series.
-
All:
The 645 format made some sense as a way to save on costs in the days of film but I don't understand why it has persisted in the digital age. Having used 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 I greatly prefer any of them to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio. Does anyone know why this format was chosen? That said, the new camera sounds terrific and I'll try to come to Philadelphia to see it on June 19th.
-
My bottom line: at 8k for the body + viewfinder alone, one could already easily get a 645z that comes with a sensor. What insane pricing.
Hi Guys,
http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2015/06/02/new-phaseone-xf-camera-body-announced/ (http://brianhirschfeldphotography.com/2015/06/02/new-phaseone-xf-camera-body-announced/)
Above you can find a link to my thoughts on the new PhaseOne XF Camera body. I think that it offers a number of great improvements, making it the most modern and integrated medium format digital camera body that has been made thus far.
I will be trying to get some hands on time with it very soon.
What do you think?
Best,
BH
-
The 645 format made some sense as a way to save on costs in the days of film but I don't understand why it has persisted in the digital age. Having used 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 I greatly prefer any of them to a 6x4.5 aspect ratio. Does anyone know why this format was chosen?
Firstly, the cost factor is still there: enlarging a "medium format" sensor by one third in height to get a square format would increase its cost substantially. Further, most of the time, the added part of the image would be cropped away: the great majority of prints and displayed still images are in shapes ranging from about 5:4 to 3:2, and this was true even when printing from 6x6 negatives.
There is a case for the 5:4 shape of "6x7" format for portraiture, but for most other uses like landscapes, there would be more cropping, and so more wasting of expensive sensor real estate. 4:3 sits nicely amidst the range, so on average it keeps down the wastage to cropping.
What is lost from the film era is the ability for cameras to use the same film stock to produce frame of different shapes. (Sometimes even in the same camera; couldn't the RB67 also do 6x8?) So fewer different shapes and sizes are viable in the low-volume, high-end DMF sector.
-
Really? You think $8K for the XF body and viewfinder is out of line?
Have you priced an M Leica? $7K
Have you priced the upcoming 007 S Leica? $25K
Have you priced a Nikon D4S? $7K
In the light of this, why would you consider the new Phase One XF's price to be out of line?
Michael
-
I think historically 645 and 6x6 is a descendant of the 6x9 plate format that was very popular in travel folders at the beginning of the 1900s; I used 6x9 sheet film in plate-to-film adapters when I learnt to photograph, and there were also 120 rollfilm adapters for these ancestors. Then there was the rollfilm Super Ikonta of which there was a 6x6 and 6x9 version, and other superb folders like the Plaubel Makina which was already 4.5x6 or 6x9 (http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/makina_e.htm).
The iconic MF cameras were the Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad, with their square format and single look-down camera orientation. I miss it.
Of course, I don't expect "modern professional" photographers like Synn to understand this oldfashioned nostalgia for the square.
Edmund
Firstly, the cost factor is still there: enlarging a "medium format" sensor by one third in height to get a square format would increase its cost substantially. Further, most of the time, the added part of the image would be cropped away: the great majority of prints and displayed still images are in shapes ranging from about 5:4 to 3:2, and this was true even when printing from 6x6 negatives.
There is a case for the 5:4 shape of "6x7" format for portraiture, but for most other uses like landscapes, there would be more cropping, and so more wasting of expensive sensor real estate. 4:3 sits nicely amidst the range, so on average it keeps down the wastage to cropping.
What is lost from the film era is the ability for cameras to use the same film stock to produce frame of different shapes. (Sometimes even in the same camera; couldn't the RB67 also do 6x8?) So fewer different shapes and sizes are viable in the low-volume, high-end DMF sector.
-
I think historically 645 and 6x6 is a descendant of the 6x9 plate format that was very popular in travel folders at the beginning of the 1900s; I used 6x9 sheet film in plate-to-film adapters when I learnt to photograph, and there were also 120 rollfilm adapters for these ancestors. Then there was the rollfilm Super Ikonta of which there was a 6x6 and 6x9 version, and other superb folders like the Plaubel Makina which was already 4.5x6 or 6x9 (http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/makina_e.htm).
True; I omitted mention of the wider "panoramic" shapes (also possible with the same 120 roll film) because they go in the opposite direction from rwarshaw's question about the loss of square and 5:4 formats.
The iconic MF cameras were the Rolleiflex and the Hasselblad, with their square format and single look-down camera orientation.
Nostalgia aside, the underlined words are the only reason that cameras in square format cameras were ever made and sold in sufficient numbers to be economically viable. The rise of eye-level viewfinders (maybe with the rotating back of the Mamiya RB67) was the beginning of then end. Though I must say, I sometimes enjoy using my EM5 at waist level, composing on the flipped out rear-screen and stabilizing by resting it on my belly fat, and then it would be nice to do verticals without a massive crop, so I can see why someone who takes a lot more verticals than I do would like a less "short and wide" format.
-
Firstly, the cost factor is still there: enlarging a "medium format" sensor by one third in height to get a square format would increase its cost substantially. Further, most of the time, the added part of the image would be cropped away: the great majority of prints and displayed still images are in shapes ranging from about 5:4 to 3:2, and this was true even when printing from 6x6 negatives.
There is a case for the 5:4 shape of "6x7" format for portraiture, but for most other uses like landscapes, there would be more cropping, and so more wasting of expensive sensor real estate. 4:3 sits nicely amidst the range, so on average it keeps down the wastage to cropping.
What is lost from the film era is the ability for cameras to use the same film stock to produce frame of different shapes. (Sometimes even in the same camera; couldn't the RB67 also do 6x8?) So fewer different shapes and sizes are viable in the low-volume, high-end DMF sector.
The big thing that bugs me about MFDSLRs is the lack of a square sensor. Such cameras are not exactly handy for portrait orientated shooting, particularly with a waist level finder. Square means you can shoot both landscape and portrait in one go, not to mention that the 1:1 ratio is quite nice in itself. I often crop down to 1:1.
-
CB commentary: Is it time for margaritas yet?
-
CB commentary: Is it time for margaritas yet?
Yes, provided they come in square glasses :)
Edmund
-
J,
I got this for free at my local camera store. It is square MF, older than most of us, and has zero shutter lag.
*You* sound too much like I usually do. I think you need another margarita :)
Edmund
-
@barihunk
My bottom line: at 8k for the body + viewfinder alone, one could already easily get a 645z that comes with a sensor. What insane pricing.
Not sure what the 645z has to do with this topic, if you want the Pentax then go buy one, take some pictures and left us know how it goes. Furthermore the H5X body and finder is near 8k at BH photo so you @barihunk have that as an option.
I intend to purchase the Phase One XF. My IQ260 has never let me down and I own five absolutely crisp Schneider Kreuznach LS lenses that have been waiting for a new body. The XF is well designed and integrated for the I/Q series. The build and shape appeals to my aesthetic. Of course what's under the hood of the camera is of the upmost importance. Auto focus locking in and a responsive shutter button are two things high on my list.
-
Michael maybe except the difference is with those other cameras u can make a photo (and btw Leica is kind of a strange comparison) and 8k for the phase body just gets you the sound of making a photo.
Exactly.
There is no discussing that the prices are high. Now it probably indeed won't be a problem for those already owning a Phaseone back, nor for those considering spending 50,000 US$ for the working cameras including a back and a second lens.
At least now you get what appears to be a very nice body for that price and the prices aren't that much higher than those of the old cameras. ;)
I love the approach they have chosen to set the auto mode and the limits on speed/aperture/ISO. Nikon had the best Auto ISO feature till date, this is even better. Overall it seems like a very well thought out system, congrats to Phase one!
The thing that would personally bother me more is the weight. My arm already feels pretty tired after carrying a D810 and Otus 85mm f1.4 and that combo is less than 2 kgs. The camera+back+most lenses will be close to 3kg. That makes it hard to shoot handheld for most photographers.
I cannot afford it now and would prefer a larger CMOS chip in the 90MP range anyway. Hopefully the IQ490 (just guessing) 2 years down the road will be the perfect camera and I'll have saved the cash by then. ;)
Kevin and Doug have already made it pretty clear they don't see a larger CMOS next year.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I like Michael and Kevin's frontpage writeup and interview. Very clean and clear.
Edmund
-
Damn. That was a big margarita! Anyway... what was I saying? Right... cameras are utterly irrelevant. Vision and skill, that's what sells.
-
Michael maybe except the difference is with those other cameras u can make a photo (and btw Leica is kind of a strange comparison) and 8k for the phase body just gets you the sound of making a photo.
Ok, that was spit-up-my-smoothie level funny. And, in the words of H.J. Simpson, "It's funny 'cause it's true."
- N.
-
Kevin and Doug have already made it pretty clear they don't see a larger CMOS next year.
Is this accurate? That means my IQ250 may still be crowned with dynamic range for another year - incredible!
-
Is this accurate? That means my IQ250 may still be crowned with dynamic range for another year - incredible!
Probably for another 2 years... Unless something better comes from below of course. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Probably for another 2 years... Unless something better comes from below of course. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
That saying is of course a necessary condition to persuade people buy the IQ380 so that the CCD inventory can be cleared out. Though another source (claimed to have connections with Sony and ATI) also suggested 2017.
-
Of course, I don't expect "modern professional" photographers like Synn to understand this oldfashioned nostalgia for the square.
Edmund
There is no reason to drag my name into this. I am not the one who started the discussion about square formats, nor did I make a comment on it. You can take your trolling elsewhere.
Btw, "Where is the new phase one body"?
Here it is.
Where is your money?
-
Hi,
The way I see it, the camera body is the only thing not contributing to the image. What is in front of the body like subject and lens matter a lot. A solid tripod with a good head also contributes to image quality. The stuff behind the body, like photographer and sensor also matter a lot.
Is that PhaseOne XF overpriced? If you don't feel that an IQ 350 is overpriced the pricing of the body my be utterly irrelevant.
The way I see it, Phase One did a good job designing a new body that works well with leaf shutter lenses. A lot of good things with that body. For me the Phase One system is clearly beyond what I want to spend on a camera system.
Best regards
Erik
Damn. That was a big margarita! Anyway... what was I saying? Right... cameras are utterly irrelevant. Vision and skill, that's what sells.
-
Hi,
My take is that a high MP camera is best used on tripod anyway, so handholding doesn't matter for me. When backpacking or traveling by air the weight obviously matters a lot.
Best regards
Erik
The thing that would personally bother me more is the weight. My arm already feels pretty tired after carrying a D810 and Otus 85mm f1.4 and that combo is less than 2 kgs. The camera+back+most lenses will be close to 3kg. That makes it hard to shoot handheld for most photographers.
I cannot afford it now and would prefer a larger CMOS chip in the 90MP range anyway. Hopefully the IQ490 (just guessing) 2 years down the road will be the perfect camera and I'll have saved the cash by then. ;)
Kevin and Doug have already made it pretty clear they don't see a larger CMOS next year.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
My take is that a high MP camera is best used on tripod anyway,
For many applications high MP cameras are too much. When resolution is approaching 10x8 the set up is going to be the same, not much hand holding there!!
It's obviously been easier to ramp up MP than dynamic range (real range, however you want to define it) and latitude in exposure cf film curves at exposure not applied in post to massage the data.
I'm surprised no one picked up on the cost comparison. Michael, quite accurately, placed the competition in Leica, Hasselblad land, the question posed though was against the 645Z much as the A7R and the camera we don't name, a bit like a certain play by Shakespeare, the 8*0 are in a similar bracket, not a percentage but a decimal point different when the output is still a stream of digital data and what you place both in front of and behind the body to generate that data is vastly more important.
All the gear, no idea.
-
I think it's an albatross.
But I like it.
-
My opinion, love the camera body and the new WLF. I agree that the ergonomics are not quite there when compared to the Hy6, but overall it looks better then the Hassy.
The IQ380, meh. I know that they say the 380 has better LE abilities, which is the only reason I would consider it over a 360 (or 260), but the fact that it does not start until ISO 200 has me skeptical.
I am curious to see what the higher ISO performance looks like.
-
Dear PhaseOne: Please bring out a second camera. Call it the "XF Professional".
This version should have nothing in common with the XF, except the fast autofocus. The "XF Professional" should only come with a shutter speed dial/wheel, an aperture dial/wheel and a shutter release button. Nothing else is required. It should cost less than 2k and be compatible with all p1 digital backs. And it should have a right angle grip for shooting in portrait mode for 12 hour sessions. You don't need to market this camera, just put them in equipment rental houses and we'll find em.
Thanks.
-
I think $8k retail is high for a body, especially when it's 'open' but only usable with a Phase/Leaf back, and a limited subset of those in existence. I understand the need to update the interface, and hope it'll do a lot for the platform going forward (IQ4 and such). I think Phase would do themselves a huge service by doing a tradein/upgrade for DF+ customers - make it as cheap as possible. Refurb them and offer the DF+ bodies dirt cheap in a combo with P/P+ backs.
-
I think $8k retail is high for a body, especially when it's 'open' but only usable with a Phase/Leaf back, and a limited subset of those in existence. I understand the need to update the interface, and hope it'll do a lot for the platform going forward (IQ4 and such). I think Phase would do themselves a huge service by doing a tradein/upgrade for DF+ customers - make it as cheap as possible. Refurb them and offer the DF+ bodies dirt cheap in a combo with P/P+ backs.
Done and done.
DF+ owners can trade in their camera body (credit should be roughly $2,000).
For the past 2-3 months, Capture Integration has been offering Certified DF+ Bodies for $2,500 with a P+ DB (or any other digital back purchase), and will continue to do so going forward.
Steve Hendrix
CI
-
I think $8k retail is high for a body,
Actually I'm amazed they could sell it this cheaply. In fact I am amazed that Phase were able to do this at all given the huge R&D costs associated with creating a new camera like this.
I do wish the tire kickers (not you Joe), would stop whining about a camera they have not yet seen, and are never going to buy anyway. Instead let's congratulate Phase on making the thing and giving Hasselblad some (more) competition to think about.
Well done Phase One.
-
I just got back from DT's event here in LA. I wished and hoped that the XF would suck and I wouldn't want one. That wasn't the case. It is a bad ass camera. Feels really good in your hands, extremely well made. It can be as crazy complicated as you want or perfectly simple, you choose. Phase One hit one out of the park, this is a revolutionary camera that other manufacturers are going to be copying for years. I apologize to your accountant and your spouses. In the end it's just a tool for creating images, nothing more, like a tow truck or cement pump. Dang is it a nice tow truck though.
-
Actually I'm amazed they could sell it this cheaply. In fact I am amazed that Phase were able to do this at all given the huge R&D costs associated with creating a new camera like this.
I do wish the tire kickers (not you Joe), would stop whining about a camera they have not yet seen, and are never going to buy anyway. Instead let's congratulate Phase on making the thing and giving Hasselblad some (more) competition to think about.
Well done Phase One.
If I may be allowed a joke, we should congratulate Phase One for doing the R&D so Pentax can improve their products :)
I'm sure the next Sony sensor will owe a lot to Phase One's requests ...
Edmund
-
If I may be allowed a joke, we should congratulate Phase One for doing the R&D so Pentax can improve their products :)
I'm sure the next Sony sensor will owe a lot to Phase One's requests ...
Edmund
My god, isn't it the middle of the morning in France right now? You really are relentless.
-
My god, isn't it the middle of the morning in France right now? You really are relentless.
Time without other distractions :)
Edmund
-
+1 BC, +5 rather, I see this as Phase almost getting up to speed. 2 years ago I would've been thrilled. Being said, I bought it the moment I got the e-blast. Flying around the world with a DF has been like carrying around a corpse. Not unlike Weekend at Bernie's, where, sure the corpse can dance for you if you play the music, but ultimately it's still dead.
The XF is a welcome update, and I'm glad to spend the money provided it works. I should have mine on set by late June/early July when I'm back in the states. (THANK YOU DOUG SPERLING of PROGEAR). I can maybe help run it through the paces. Though don't expect the charts and other quantifications. I'm strictly looking at he question - does this make my job easier than before.
Also, BC, you have great work.
-
I just got back from DT's event here in LA. I wished and hoped that the XF would suck and I wouldn't want one. That wasn't the case. It is a bad ass camera. Feels really good in your hands, extremely well made. It can be as crazy complicated as you want or perfectly simple, you choose. Phase One hit one out of the park, this is a revolutionary camera that other manufacturers are going to be copying for years. I apologize to your accountant and your spouses. In the end it's just a tool for creating images, nothing more, like a tow truck or cement pump. Dang is it a nice tow truck though.
That's great to hear Weldon! We are very proud and excited about the new camera and appreciate any feedback!
BR
Yair
-
I just got back from DT's event here in LA. I wished and hoped that the XF would suck and I wouldn't want one. That wasn't the case. It is a bad ass camera. Feels really good in your hands, extremely well made. It can be as crazy complicated as you want or perfectly simple, you choose. Phase One hit one out of the park, this is a revolutionary camera that other manufacturers are going to be copying for years. I apologize to your accountant and your spouses. In the end it's just a tool for creating images, nothing more, like a tow truck or cement pump. Dang is it a nice tow truck though.
Happy to hear one real life (And very positive) experience amongst the sea of usual nonsense.
I am dreading the day when I test this because I have a feeling I am gonna be a lot poorer soonafter.
-
The new Phase looks like it has some interesting innovations.
I like the "wait until the vibrations have calmed down, then fire the leaf shutter" release mode, for example, and the ability to specify allowable ranges of shutter speed, aperture and ISO in auto modes would be useful for me.
The Profoto flash integration would be super-useful if I'd invested in Profoto flash instead of Hensel!
The touch screen interface I'm not so convinced by, I like clicky things I can feel with the camera to my eye, but without playing with the camera I don't know if the design would work for me or not.
Personally I'm so used to focus-and-recompose that I'm fine with just one focus point. Does it do the Hasselblad trick of compensating for the recompose using the gyro info to keep focus where it should be?
Faster leaf shutters are always good, and I'm sure the lenses will be kick-ass.
I like that the camera looks like it'll be more tightly integrated, more of a dSLR shooting experience- that's why I went the Hasselblad route when I took the plunge into MF.
So all in all, I'll certainly consider the Phase if and when my Hasselblad doesn't cut the mustard any more, which I'm sure it won't in a few years.
BUT. But. But. The price differential between the Phase (and current Hasselblad and Leica offerings) and the Pentax 645Z just can't be ignored...
I do use the leaf shutter plus flash to overpower daylight, and it is a powerful feature... but even for me I'm not sure it would be worth the factor of 3+ in price.
Put another way, the Pentax I could get on a one-year loan/lease and be confident of paying it off comfortably, with business I'm pretty sure I'm going to get.
The Phase would be a three year. That's a hell of a commitment in uncertain times.
Or, given the choice between Phase outfit or Pentax outfit AND complete Canon 5DS outfit with pretty much any lenses your heart desires, plus a new car to drive them all around in thrown in for good measure... I'd be really struggling to pick the Phase.
We won't know until there are some out in the wild, but it looks like Phase have produced a nice camera. What it isn't (for me at least) is any sort of revolution. It's a few nice things added but a hell of a price, so when I do upgrade my MF kit I'll look at it but the value proposition may not be there for my particular business. YMMV of course!
Hywel
-
Auto iso on CMOS is fine, auto iso on CCD, to me not so fine. Any CCD back from Phase is pretty much base iso plus 1 stop, so on a 260/360 for example this would be 50 to 100. If the camera picks say 400 or even 800, then you will be more than likely disappointed as there is just no enough range in the CCD to get there. Sure if you go to sensor plus you can get a pretty nice shot, but I don't think the camera is going to ask, "do you want to go to sensor plus for this", it would be a nice feature if it did. So to the auto iso is great feature for the 350 and the 250 if the feature works on the older 250. Here you can safely push to even iso 1600 without a massive loss in image quality.
I refer to outdoor work, in studio with lighting, you may work fine with iso 400 from a CCD back, personally by 400 I am seeing way too much noise and considerable loss in color fidelity especially if the back is warm.
Paul
-
Auto ISO can be easily limited. You could hard limit it to 200 or even 100 max.
Just tap on ISO and turn the dial next to the "max ISO" number.
On most cameras this would be several menus deep.
-
The Profoto flash integration would be super-useful if I'd invested in Profoto flash instead of Hensel!
Stick a Profoto Air receiver on your Hensel and now you're integrated :).
-
My only feedback is some type of carbon fiber vertical grip the integrates the second release button on the body. Also, the explanation I heard on the new auto focus system is very different than the assumptions made by members of this forum. Perhaps someone smarter than me can fully explain it to the public.
That's great to hear Weldon! We are very proud and excited about the new camera and appreciate any feedback!
BR
Yair
-
Auto ISO can be easily limited. You could hard limit it to 200 or even 100 max.
Just tap on ISO and turn the dial next to the "max ISO" number.
On most cameras this would be several menus deep.
I assumed it could be limited, but for a 50 to 100 limit on CCD not worth too much as you can recover that in post. Where it plays I believe is with the 350, and hopefully the users of 250's can gain this also. IMO bigger deal for CMOS.
Paul
-
BC,
Thanks for being the devil's advocate. :)
Those are definitely valid points, but there are some reasons why I am strongly considering the upgrade.
- I am moving more towards fine art work than portraiture these days. This sort of work benefits greatly from a waist level finder. I am not ready yet to move to a tech camera platform (And certainly not to pay Rodenstock tax) and this is the next best solution.
- I don't put much stock into the "Only one point" pessimist argument here. First of all, they mention a "Focus area", not a "Focus point". It seems to be a different type of AF tech that is best judged after first hand use (And yes, if it doesn't offer a big advantage over the current AF system, I might rethink the purchase strongly. The next thing is that my D800 has 51 AF points and not once have I taken full advantage of it. I prefer to move a small cluster of AF points around. There are people who want and need that, my style just doesnt demand it.
- My only serious complaint about the DF+ is the insipid way in which menus are implemented. I can't remember the custom functions EVER and need to refer the manual each time. The dial rotates by accident often and one realizes this only after a few shots. The XF brings with it a very intuitive UI and that matters a LOT in daily use, more than specs on paper. (Again, need to use to know first hand, but seems positive, judging from the current reports). Also, simple things like the same battery working for the body and back counts for less frustrations in daily use. May not matter to all, it does to me.
Lastly, I am not paying five figures for the upgrade as you suggest in your post. It's a body to body upgrade, while keeping my current back. That's hardly RED money (Incidentally, as much as I know how much you love your RED, I have less than zero interest in video and thus, don't measure the perceived value of a stills camera system by comparing it to video systems). Also, the price is pretty comparable to the Hasselblad body with the prism, not a 2k difference as you suggest.
P.S. It is not a Contax without a right angle grip. For one, it is not a dead system and I don't need to keep a second one in the dry cabinet just in case this one kicks the bucket and there are no more copies out in the wild or spare parts for the repairs. ;)
-
Stick a Profoto Air receiver on your Hensel and now you're integrated :).
Will that emulate the channels and the ability to change power settings remotely? Coz if it is just triggering the flash, any old Chinese eBay POC will do that... Unfortunately most of my Hensel kit is a few years old, before they added Profoto compatibility so it probably doesn't help me. Shame, it would have been a significant plus for the Phase system, but I don't think it'll work with my older units.
Cheers, Hywel
-
+ 3
this is the real world...
best.
nobody will put all this $$$$
phase one is a not a status brand like leica...
-
and for the allready obsolete iq 3 .....
everybody waiting the full frame cmos !
wrong subject ????
nobody buy an old tech for that $$$
-
not true
they wil rent it ! ;)
-
bcooter,
...new DF or DX (what is it called?)
XF.
-
Dude, go use the camera instead hypothesizing what it is or isn't. Maybe it works for you maybe it doesn't. I've had my Contax for almost 10 years and I love it but it's just a tool with a lot of miles on it. In relation to other professions, cameras are actually quite cheap compared to heavy equipment or vehicles. I understand your argument but just because Ford comes out with a new F150 every year doesn't mean you have to go buy one. Just a little perspective.
XF? What does that stand for?
I'm sincere about my comments.
At what point do us, the buyers say enough is enough, because what I have is working, or for the price it should have been working?
OK new camera great, ok it is lego I'm sorry Scandinavian design great I guess, ok the current backs won't fully or completely work with it, not so great.
OK, we all guess that Phase is just clearing out all of their CCD stock until they go completely cmos, less than not so great.
I finally read Kevin's piece and it's semi fair and balanced but it's still tuned for the camera maker, not the photographer.
From Kevin's article my pick up was it's great because it doesn't suck like the previous camera.
Where's the hard questions that I listed above? To be fair most other sites and periodicals run the same stuff, I guess because they need access to the camera makers for whatever reason.
But just once I'd love to see something like a real hard questioning of why so long, why such a high price and why not the features found on lowly $1200 prosumer cameras.
In body or back stabilization that will shoot a razor sharp image at 1/8th of a second? Why not a fully articulating screen since your building a new back anyway?
And why not a Leica S solution of being able to adapt other lenses to the body with complete and full focus functionality?
Or a DNG file so we don't have to keep upgrading systems, cameras and computers, or just drop a file into any system and software we chose and off we go?
Even if you never use or like video, the low priced Pentax kind of does video with one of the same sensors, so why not?
You can always use video for scouting locations, or your kids party.
Will the IQ4 have the features listed above or do we find creative ways for some extra coin to pay up again?
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/clovoweb/image/33974__22.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
bcooter,
XF? What does that stand for?
With X as a character I doubt XF is an acronym.
I'm sincere about my comments.
I know.
At what point do us, the buyers say enough is enough...
In principle when our sense of value is exceeded, the measure of which will evolve according to the life experience and personal circumstances of each individual.
-
XF? What does that stand for?
Want some historic semiotic analysis of this product name?
Once upon a time there was "645AF", where of course AF meant Auto-Focus and 65 was a film format size.
Then the "A" became a "D", for Digital.
Now the "645" is gone, because that film format is no longer supported and it is no long accurate given the various sensor sizes, and there is the possibility that in the impending all-CMOS future, sensors will never again be close to full 645 size.
The "D" is gone, because it now goes without saying that it is digital; Phase One has left film compatibility and comparisons behind.
The "D" is replaced by an "X" because of an EU mandate that all new product must have that letter in their name or else be taxed at a higher rate. Or for neXt generation, or eXtreme.
So XF = "next generation autofocus system in a camera of ambiguous format size and extreme pricing".
-
Wow BJL that is good...
-
It looks to me like Phase One is turning to "closed" system with the XF, while Hasselblad is back to "open" system with the H5X? ....That's strange!
-
I think the best thing about the XF is the promise of doing some real neat DAC such as the camera shake blur reduction in post that Brian alluded to in another thread. Probably they have other intelligent things for it to do on their road map. Phase's strength seems to be software so I'd expect a lot more of that. That's why I joked this will be the self driving car of cameras. I'm very curious to handle the camera. Probably they have a XF2 in the wings already without a mirror and with an EVF finder just waiting for new FF CMOS sensors. If they don't they should have.
Weldon, how often did you have to pull the camera away from what you were shooting and look at it to change a setting? From the surface it sure looks like you can't adjust any settings by feel and will need to stop and look at it, but maybe I'm wrong?
I've been to a lot of workshops and group shoots these last two years where guys had the DF+ camera and said stuff like, "yeah, I've put almost 100k shots through the DF+…. and hated (the body) on every frame." or "I only took this camera because I got it free with the back." So for those guys, this new camera will really probably look like a great leap forward.
Anyone know if there will be a film back option for the XF? It's really surprising how many customers with the Hy6 are shooting film instead of digital or in addition to digital. It also seems that fewer and fewer pros are using their MFDB's as their main camera anymore. It also seems like the real target audience for these cameras is no longer working pro's (maybe it never was?) so it does make sense to create self driving camera.
-
Eric, you can customize the hard buttons to be anything you want so you don't have to look up. From both the camera and C1 you can change any of the buttons/dials.
Bcooter, uber respect for your work and I was not trying to be harsh. You're right, where does it end? That's a philosophical debate for all areas of modern society. Ever at Lucky Baldwin's in Pasadena I buy ya a beer.
I think the best thing about the XF is the promise of doing some real neat DAC such as the camera shake blur reduction in post that Brian alluded to in another thread. Probably they have other intelligent things for it to do on their road map. Phase's strength seems to be software so I'd expect a lot more of that. That's why I joked this will be the self driving car of cameras. I'm very curious to handle the camera. Probably they have a XF2 in the wings already without a mirror and with an EVF finder just waiting for new FF CMOS sensors. If they don't they should have.
Weldon, how often did you have to pull the camera away from what you were shooting and look at it to change a setting? From the surface it sure looks like you can't adjust any settings by feel and will need to stop and look at it, but maybe I'm wrong?
I've been to a lot of workshops and group shoots these last two years where guys had the DF+ camera and said stuff like, "yeah, I've put almost 100k shots through the DF+…. and hated (the body) on every frame." or "I only took this camera because I got it free with the back." So for those guys, this new camera will really probably look like a great leap forward.
Anyone know if there will be a film back option for the XF? It's really surprising how many customers with the Hy6 are shooting film instead of digital or in addition to digital. It also seems that fewer and fewer pros are using their MFDB's as their main camera anymore. It also seems like the real target audience for these cameras is no longer working pro's (maybe it never was?) so it does make sense to create self driving camera.
-
Hi,
From Brian's article:
"Update: Seismographic mode can be used with all lenses, however it will be most effective with leaf shutter lenses, given the vibration reduction inherent in not using the focal plane shutter.
Also, we should be very excited about the possibilities of the accelerometer, at the time of my initial writing I was not aware of this, however a US Patent #US6747690 B2 entitled Digital camera with integrated accelerometers filed by PhaseOne a number of years ago suggests in its abstract that “Data relating to static and dynamic accelerations are stored with recorded image data for further processing, such as for correcting image data for roll, pitch and vibrations … Data may also be used on-the-fly for smear suppression caused by vibrations.” There are other PhaseOne patents that deal with the accelerometer, but this one would suggest that what I alluded to above could very much be on the menu in the not too distant future, and would certainly be a modern feature!"
This is interesting stuff. Ideally, the camera should be stable during exposure, but there are cases where vibration is hard to avoid, like shooting in windy conditions. If camera motion is recorded during exposure, that data may be using to deconvolve the image.
Best regards
Erik
-
Wait a minute...they arent releasing the IQ3 backs in a hasselblad mount? There keeping it exclusive to the XF?
-
Wait a minute...they arent releasing the IQ3 backs in a hasselblad mount? There keeping it exclusive to the XF?
According to this spec sheet
https://www.phaseone.com/~/media/NEW_WEB/Tech-Spec/XF/XF_Technical_Specs.ashx
the IQ380 body (the only one with a new sensor) will come in both Hasselblad mounts (H and V), with the other two sensors provided for Hasselblad mounts via the IQ250 and IQ260 staying around.
-
I'm from Texas, I love pigs and farms.
(https://dkzqmqjr9uy7w.cloudfront.net/b03dfa60-d386-11e2-8f1b-e3cc9cc0674f/assets/b1cab1b4-7b2c-45cc-8b1f-2e2fc79dcb63.jpg)
(https://dkzqmqjr9uy7w.cloudfront.net/b03dfa60-d386-11e2-8f1b-e3cc9cc0674f/assets/c6487723-27a5-45d9-99dc-c9b1864f97f5.jpg)
-
anyway this is already an albatros , we can bet !
let see in one year how many sales number....
bets are open ....
untill the first back cmos full frame will be released there will be zero real improvement for our pictures.
the rest is only talking about gadget details that will not change anything in our results of our photography.
best,c.
-
Synn,
First and foremost I care about the photograph and the state of our industry . . . photographers not camera makers.
If it works for you, believe it or not I'm happy and I hope it does everything you want.
The real ONLY problem I have with this is so many phase users suffered through the DF waiting for a new camera only to be told that if they use their current backs they lose some functionality.
In today's world of electronics, I find that kind of a rip.
Those loyal users should have been rewarded, not hobbled and I know that everyone does it, RED, Apple, every electronic company that can find a way to reach into your wallet.
It may be the new standard business model but it gets old real fast.
No I don't love my REDs. They've helped me make good money, they were the first cinema camera I could afford that look like cinema, not video, but they have the same business model as phase but for the latest upgrade money they've seen the last purchase from me and there is no anger or malice in that quote. It's just today there are better alternatives.
For motion when the time comes I'll move to Blackmagic "if" they get their issues ironed out before they deliver, because I think they've found a place that the market can accept. Under $5,000 for a cinema camera is where they should have been all along and since they offer a coloring suite, compositing and moving into editorial solutions, they are covering the basis without holding anyone back.
Now if I was buying medium format today and didn't have cases of cameras, I'd probably do a Pentax because they're at a price and functionality that the market requests, or a Hasselblad if I needed to tether, because they've been in the market so long, you can rent anything anytime, almost any place.
Thanks.
IMO
BC
BC,
I am not sure if you have all the facts right about the new platform (Or maybe I don't, feel free to correct me), but users of existign first gen backs like me are NOT losing any existing functionality. We are gaining new features and the stuff that we don't get (Such as power sharing or adjusting some body parameters from the back) are not deal breakers. Since you like smartphone analogies, consider it like when a new version of iOS comes out. The latest and greatest handsets get all the features, the older ones get most of them (Thereby improving their current featureset), but miss out on a few new ones, either for marketing reasons or technological ones.
Now if they pulled some crap like Hassy did back in the day by saying "Some lenses only work with the new body/ Back" or whatever, I would have a genuine axe to grind. In this case, I really don't see it.
...and once again, this being a stills only platform doesn't bother me one single bit. In fact, I welcome it with both hands. There are enough jack of all trades players in the market. There should be a few dedicated ones too. It's the same rationale I have for traveling with a dedicated FLAC player and DAC instead of plugging my headphones into a phone as 99% people do.
Cheers!
-
Ι asked this on the other conversation that Doug started, but it seems like a late question since there is no reply yet... Does anyone knows the answers?
" Three more questions please:
1. Will the XF body work with any current third party backs that are made for m645 mount? (eg. the Sinarbacks)
2. If not, will it allow third party backs to work on the platform via a new compatible interface plate?
3. Will the XF allow for multishot captures with a multishot able third party back?
Thanks... "
-
Wait a minute...they arent releasing the IQ3 backs in a hasselblad mount? There keeping it exclusive to the XF?
It's just an artifact of the naming.
Nearly every new feature of the IQ3 is coming to the IQ2 backs (any platform) by free firmware update. The only feature that requires an IQ3 is Power Sharing on an XF body. So there is no logic in tagging an "IQ3" for Hassy H or Hassy V.
Current owners of a P1 back in a Hassy H/Hassy V mount just received four new tools and improved tethering speed (it was already the fastest but now is even faster) for free. (Or will when this firmware is released in a few weeks).
-
There are three kinds of possible customers in to any maker that makes a modular system...
1. Those that are interested to approach the system as a complete offering.
2. Those that are interested to invest on the maker's camera body and (as a consequence) lenses.
3. Those that are interested to invest on the maker's digital (image area) offerings only and consider to adapt them on their existing cameras...
I believe that there is good information for 1&3 above... But none on 2... Soooo, Lets suppose that one wants to buy a Sinarback 86H and considers to adapt it on an XF body.... (Sinar makes adapter plates that mechanically are compatible with m645) ...can he do so? Will his back work? Will he be able to have multishot captures on an XF? ...or is H5X the only (6x4.5) platform in current production that he can use?
-
My god !!!
XF camera body, IQ3 digital back, PrismViewfinder & Schneider Kreuznach 80mm LS lens: XF IQ3 80MP – $48,990.00 / 38.990,00 EUR !!!
Don´t was in this forum for several months because i leave the DMF (Hasselblad 39MP) , for full time 35mm and Motion, and i am in perplexed how its possible in present days to sell a still camera for this price???
Its great for me! because now the C300 MarkII fell cheap !!! :D :D ;D :D
I was a industrial energy and environment corporate photographer, but in the last 2 years all my clients have LCDs with corporate movies on there buildings, and fairy booths no more big 500$ prints... >:( just 2 or 3 LCDs...
Any one here go to the shopping mall? in the cloths stores? any big prints? nooooppppp just lcds...with motion
For my case, i just sold my DMF stills for 7.000$, bought a 5D markIII and a C100 markI.
And after knowing the tecnology, specs chips in motion camera like a c100 or a c300 or a blackmagic ursa, for 6.000 or 15.000$ and just cant get this 50.k figures....
No problem, the people have the right to spend the money on anything.
-
i agree with you pedro very very small market....
reduced from last year.
-
untill the first back cmos full frame will be released there will be zero real improvement for our pictures.
best,c.
Hi Ciccio,
CCD or CMOs not, if you have nothing to say in your images then it really doesn't make a difference.
It's difficult to comprehend where you are coming from as an artist. Please share your website or the type of photography you do.
Most professionals look very hard at their camera kit. You don't reach the leagues of BC or Annie without being very pragmatic. To be frank if I put my money on the counter the gear had better pay for itself either in the growth of my bank account or helping me grow creativity.
I have been able to work well with my DF+ however every time I pick it up I get the sense that it was not designed to interactive fully with my IQ series digital back. And when you are working with a client breathing down your neck or have given up your valuable time on a personal weekend project its not cool to have to sweat camera body issues.
I have not used the XF camera body. Have you? When I do I will share my results. The idea is to forget you have that black box between you and the subject. Thats the goal. Whatever new camera can help me do that then I will consider.
When you look at the work of Dan Winters, Gregory Crewdson or Tim Walker do you think they focus on the camera? Or about creating great photography?
In regards to the the CMOs full frame revolution, to be honest I have to deal with what I have right now in front of me. My career in photography will/is not made upon future tech. Or rather by saying hey I can't shoot this corporate portrait or magazine editorial today...but I do have time on my calendar in 2017...
regards,
Jeffery
-
Most professionals look very hard at their camera kit. You don't reach the leagues of BC or Annie without being very pragmatic. To be frank if I put my money on the counter the gear had better pay for itself either in the growth of my bank account or helping me grow creativity.
Jeffrey,
The abysmal state of Annie's finances was all over the news a while ago; skill as a photographer does not imply commercial survival. And I do wonder whether the good state of "BC"'s practice doesn't stem as much from creativity, proficiency and hard work, as also from a business sense that identified the need for a timely and well managed integration of video, and the receipt of video billings.
Which brings me to my point, which I think mirrors "BC"'s : For a commercial working photographer, a $50K stills-only product often doesn't really make *monetary* sense these days, not only because it's a lot of money, but because it does NOT provide video INCOME. Given managed lighting, decent stills can probably be made with the assistant's C or N —I've heard that not only amateurs but even some respected artists shoot dSLRs — but good video really demands that pricey setup - if you have the money.
Nowadays, a video component with sound is expected for any marketing that ends up on the net. For kids, a 20 second video is "the new Kodak moment". Of course self-financed amateurs, renowned great artists, landscape photographers and those working for cultural institutions can escape chasing the latest marketing fashion.
The fashion-free are now Phase's core market.
Edmund
-
I can make no comment on the business case for stills cameras priced like this in the commercial photo world (though Cooter casts some serious doubts), but as a non-commercial shooter I would need a net worth north of $5m to ever consider this kind of a spend. That's the market. Phase knows that, and is unapologetic about it. That's business.
- N.
-
I can make no comment on the business case for stills cameras priced like this in the commercial photo world (though Cooter casts some serious doubts), but as a non-commercial shooter I would need a net worth north of $5m to ever consider this kind of a spend. That's the market. Phase knows that, and is unapologetic about it. That's business.
- N.
Without having any statistics on hand, my opinion (out of experience) is that the overpriced equipment is not targeting pros... It mainly targets wealthy amatures that are playing "the photographer"... most pros use their old 22, 33 & 39 mp backs with their view cameras and use DSLRs for anything other than still life...
-
Is this thread about the new body or the usual tyre kicking about MFD prices?
And btw, I forgot when Joe Cornish and Joey L and so many others stopped being pros and became "wealthy amateurs". Because last time I checked, they were using the same phase gear many here say pros don't buy anymore.
Why can't you use what you want to use and stop passing anecdotal statements about what other people should and shouldn't buy?
...and yes, can we talk about the new body? It's a novel concept, but sticking to the thread title is kinda cool, you know?
-
Is this thread about the new body or the usual tyre kicking about MFD prices?
And btw, I forgot when Joe Cornish and Joey L and so many others stopped being pros and because "wealthy amateurs". Because last time I checked, they were using the same phase gear many here say pros don't buy anymore.
Why can't you use what you want to use and stop passing anecdotal statements about what other people should and shouldn't buy?
...and yes, can we talk about the new body? It's a novel concept, but sticking to the thread title is kinda cool, you know?
Taking about the body.... Oh yes... I just made a statement about that on another forum... let me repeat it here...
" Ok... no use of your good old back on the new body, no multishot, no film and... no way to use your JAS adapter to share the lenses with your Nikons or Canons...
Gimme a reason why I should change my Contax 645 with Fuji GX680 (contax back fit) combination where I can share my 39mp 4x multishot able back and my other 22mp 16x able (again) multishot back (for 88mp of true color)... Don't tell me "Image quality" to start with.... I'm waiting...
Forgot anything? ...Oh yeah! ...maybe that superb OTF TTL flash metering of the Contax.
P.S. Don't tell me the WLF either... I had that 12 years ago when sold my Bronica for the Contax (along with the spot metering with WLF)... and long before that with the Bronica.
P.S.-2 And don't mention the JAS adapter either which allows me not to have any 35mm lens either in the (much restricted) bag ....other than my old 17-35/2.8 (for UWs) and micro 85/2.8 PC (for when Fuji is an overkill)."
of course (as you said) money is irrelevant...
-
So, YOU don't have a reason to upgrade.
Good for you, your current gear works just ad well today as it did last week.
There are others who do. Please don't belittle their needs based on a projection of yours.
-
So, YOU don't have a reason to upgrade.
Good for you, your current gear works just ad well today as it did last week.
There are others who do. Please don't belittle their needs based on a projection of yours.
But I don't... One can speak only on his needs... Still from an outside view, (out of my needs) I can see many selecting the H5X platform than the XF only to avoid the "closed system" trap... IMO.
-
So, YOU don't have a reason to upgrade.
Good for you, your current gear works just ad well today as it did last week.
There are others who do. Please don't belittle their needs based on a projection of yours.
Synn,
I think you are too indulgent with people who hang on to obsolete equipment.
Cnn have yet again run some pictures (http://edition.cnn.com/2015/06/03/world/autochrome-christina-1913/index.html) taken by an amateur using some wierd french Lumiere process - who are these guys? It looks like that useless old trash will never die. Someone might get the idea of running an inkjet to coat plates - now that is frightening indeed!
Edmund
-
Someone might get the idea of running an inkjet to coat plates - now that is frightening indeed!
Edmund
Why bother? Ilford already coat plates commercially for special applications, not a stretch to replace the emulsion with an optically/photographic friendly one.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=56
They use a horizontal conveyor moving the plates under a coating head. The plates are then chilled by a cold-water bath just reaching the bottom of the plate then continue on the conveyor before being stacked in a filtered chiller room to fully set.
BTW Is this OT ? ;)
-
Something I haven't yet found mention of:
is the new XF compatible with the P+ backs?
Many thanks,
Pietro
-
Why bother? Ilford already coat plates commercially for special applications, not a stretch to replace the emulsion with an optically/photographic friendly one.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=56
They use a horizontal conveyor moving the plates under a coating head. The plates are then chilled by a cold-water bath just reaching the bottom of the plate then continue on the conveyor before being stacked in a filtered chiller room to fully set.
BTW Is this OT ? ;)
I was thinking of home-made emulsions. Make them, expose, process and scan, contact print, or put them on lightbox, rinse and repeat.
Of course we are not OT - and anyway, how could 100 year old color images in any way detract from the intrinsic superiority of the Phase FX?
Edmund
-
Something I haven't yet found mention of:
is the new XF compatible with the P+ backs?
Many thanks,
Pietro
I do not think it is. I am kind of disappointed in this.
-
I do not think it is. I am kind of disappointed in this.
Μany people are... It doesn't mean that only P owners are treated as being "third party" owners, it also means that third party back owners are left out of access to the XF platform if they want to retain their present backs... It is a very dangerous decision they have made that many possible customers will take as been a blackmail.
I do believe it is a short minded decision also... It only looks on current competition from H5X body and is based on the financial problems of Hasselblad as for people not to trust the (currently available) alternative... What about Sinar though that is directly affected as Sinarbacks are left with only Hasselblad platforms as to be compatible? ...what if Leica (the owner of Sinar) decides to come up with an open platform that will both provide a platform for existing Sinarbacks, but will also invite all older third party and P back owners into the new system? What if they (Leica/Sinar) decide to resurrect Contax as to provide the alternative platform?
I believe that under international law, the Contax system returns back to Zeiss for distributing the rights by the end of this year (10 years after...), without any obligations for Kyocera compensation... and even more... Leica has had adapters out that make H lenses and C645 lenses compatible with the S system... is it that they choose those two systems by luck as to support? ...or is it a future plan as to see what will suit them best for the future? ...I believe the answer is near...
-
My Primary gripe with the new system is that I have an Aptus and would like to upgrade from to the DF Body, but do not feel that the upgrade price for a whole System is worth it considering that sensor technology has not changed much in the last years - if one wants to stay full Frame.
The current CMOS back is nice but has a crop factor and the CCD backs are barely usable above base iso.
So do we have any hints as to when we will see a full-frame CMOS and a resolution increase?
A full-frame 100 MPX CMOS would be enough reason to fully upgrade in my opinion! Anyone also disappointed that we do not see any real Progress in Terms of sensor technology?
Best
Paul
-
... do we have any hints as to when we will see a full-frame CMOS and a resolution increase?
This (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/Lenses.aspx) seems like a fairly broad hint now that the lens offerings are pretty solid.
-
Wow. Unsurprisingly, given the history of comments on this forum, some of you are being quite negative about this new camera. The XF looks amazing. It ads a level of functionality previously unheard of in Medium Format and even ads quite a few things not available in ANY camera regardless of format.
A few things.
Many of you are complaining that the XF is a closed camera. Yes, it is only compatible with the more modern backs (IQ1x and Credo or newer) but those backs have been sold for a while now and the lower end models can be had at good prices. Yes, if you are a P+ (or Aptus) owner it can be frustrating but thankfully the H1/H2/H4x/H5x are still available for those backs and frankly, the H platform has been the best option for those backs for a while now.
Wow, "the ccd backs are barely usable above base iso"?
All cameras start to loose quality and dynamic range as you go above base iso. The CCD backs are no different but I find that with my IQ160 I can still use iso 200 with superb results (at 60MP). Even iso 400 is very good. With Sensor+ I can go above that and still get awesome image quality (at a loss in resolution). Why is that I don't care. I know how it looks. Even so, for very high ISO's the CMOS backs are the right choice, period.
That said, the XF seems like a solid platform that will last many many years. Seems like it is pretty easy to update through firmware so I am sure phase will keep it fresh for many years to come. It looks good too. :) Finally a camera at the level of the IQ backs. Good stuff.
-
This (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/Camera-Systems/Lenses.aspx) seems like a fairly broad hint now that the lens offerings are pretty solid.
Βut however its not directly related with improving ones photography as such... is it?
-
Wow. Unsurprisingly, given the history of comments on this forum, some of you are being quite negative about this new camera. The XF looks amazing. It ads a level of functionality previously unheard of in Medium Format and even ads quite a few things not available in ANY camera regardless of format.
A few things.
Many of you are complaining that the XF is a closed camera. Yes, it is only compatible with the more modern backs (IQ1x and Credo or newer) but those backs have been sold for a while now and the lower end models can be had at good prices. Yes, if you are a P+ (or Aptus) owner it can be frustrating but thankfully the H1/H2/H4x/H5x are still available for those backs and frankly, the H platform has been the best option for those backs for a while now.
Wow, "the ccd backs are barely usable above base iso"?
All cameras start to loose quality and dynamic range as you go above base iso. The CCD backs are no different but I find that with my IQ160 I can still use iso 200 with superb results (at 60MP). Even iso 400 is very good. With Sensor+ I can go above that and still get awesome image quality (at a loss in resolution). Why is that I don't care. I know how it looks. Even so, for very high ISO's the CMOS backs are the right choice, period.
That said, the XF seems like a solid platform that will last many many years. Seems like it is pretty easy to update through firmware so I am sure phase will keep it fresh for many years to come. It looks good too. :) Finally a camera at the level of the IQ backs. Good stuff.
you forget one thing... that people who stick with older backs, it is (mostly) their choice to do so.... not every photographer uses his camera for fashion or landscape... or if they do for landscape, some prefer backs that favorite movements... an area where older backs are better than modern...
-
you forget one thing... that people who stick with older backs, it is (mostly) their choice to do so.... not every photographer uses his camera for fashion or landscape... or if they do for landscape, some prefer backs that favorite movements... an area where older backs are better than modern...
Ok, but if you are using an older back for camera movements then you are using it on a tech camera platform and an high tech SLR body is not really a priority for that user.
Even for landscape / Architecture I would not want to lug around a SLR body like the XF (although the new features are tempting along with the new 35mm lens). I much rather use a tech camera solution that is much smaller and lighter plus offers extensive camera movements and increased lens quality.
In the studio a tech or bellows type camera is also a must for still life and product photography if you want lens/back movements.
In those cases SLR camera compatibility is of almost no consequence and there are options for when you want / need one.
-
BC, great point.
My studio is inside a building that houses a post-production facility. Im really good friends with the owner and their top colorist. The before and after's I have seen of a lot of the work that comes in would shock most people. They do a lot of commercial work and the amount of compositing (yes, even integration of 3D elements), color correction (with tracking masks etc) and overall image manipulation that is done on most commercials (and movies) is extensive.
The same holds true with a lot of commercial images. Even those that seem natural and simple have a lot of work. Retouching houses in NY like THIS (http://www.stelladigital.com/) one work on a lot of the top images one sees published in major magazines / publications nowadays. Post production is a huge part of professional photography.
That said the photographer is responsible for the creative vision in a lot of the images and also in selecting / directing all the elements in the frame and that includes the talent, wardrobe, hair/make up, props, location/set elements and of course the light and light modifiers.
The selection of the camera/lens is just a small part in this process. An important one, but far from the single one that has a huge determination on the final product. It will affect the shooting process and of course the post-production process. For the photographer it is a matter of personal preference most times. The guys in post-production can probably tell you more about which files they rather work on.
-
Ok, but if you are using an older back for camera movements then you are using it on a tech camera platform and an high tech SLR body is not really a priority for that user.
Even for landscape / Architecture I would not want to lug around a SLR body like the XF (although the new features are tempting along with the new 35mm lens). I much rather use a tech camera solution that is much smaller and lighter plus offers extensive camera movements and increased lens quality.
In the studio a tech or bellows type camera is also a must for still life and product photography if you want lens/back movements.
In those cases SLR camera compatibility is of almost no consequence and there are options for when you want / need one.
+1 Agree... it's all common sense... this body, doesn't intent to be integrated into ones photography as to provide solutions... it rather aims to "trap" photographers around it... and it's only "another black box"...
-
I wouldn't worry about Annie, her finances and bookings . She works and has a huge body of iconic imagery that has more value than most 3 story manhattan residences.
Slight exaggeration - she mortgaged the whole shebang for about £15 million.
Also as a Vanity Fair staff photographer, a lot of her portfolio isn't included - ditto the Pirelli work she did. Working as staff photographer for VF has it's perks - the same would go for Seliger.
Remember she shot the Queen with a Canon and a zoom. It's difficult to get higher profile than that.
Those were the prelims, the final shots of the Queen were on MF and heavily composited - look at the backgrounds.
(OT: A lot of those Canon shots were on display at the National Portrait Gallery, together with a multitude of Leica M shots that included personal work with Sonntag and, more impressively, 10x8 portraits of Schwarzkopf plus others I've now forgotten. IMO, it was her 10x8's that really stood out).
Annie's not whistle clean either, remember Paolo Pizzett , the Italian photographer who sued her, around the same time, for editing ( read:nicking) his scouting pictures for LavAzza, later compositing models into his shots taken in Rome and Plaza San Marco in Venice.
Anyway, it seems now that, Kate, is the new Royal photographer of choice.
Question is, are Phase going to sponsor her - and how much will a Phase XF cost with the Royal crest and 'By Appointment ..' emblazoned on the side ? Now that'll be high profile! [/LHQ]
edit:
annie's doomsday .. circa 2009 (http://gawker.com/5354316/annie-leibovitzs-financial-doomsday-clock-hits-midnight?comment=15241925#comments)
-
Theo,
The cheapest "body upgrade" solution for anyone with a P back may be to somehow arrange a swap for an H mount model and get a Hassy. Or just trade in for a Hassy. I would expect the Phase dealers will manage to get some better deal for the customers once the FX bodies become less scarce.
Edmund
Μany people are... It doesn't mean that only P owners are treated as being "third party" owners, it also means that third party back owners are left out of access to the XF platform if they want to retain their present backs... It is a very dangerous decision they have made that many possible customers will take as been a blackmail.
I do believe it is a short minded decision also... It only looks on current competition from H5X body and is based on the financial problems of Hasselblad as for people not to trust the (currently available) alternative... What about Sinar though that is directly affected as Sinarbacks are left with only Hasselblad platforms as to be compatible? ...what if Leica (the owner of Sinar) decides to come up with an open platform that will both provide a platform for existing Sinarbacks, but will also invite all older third party and P back owners into the new system? What if they (Leica/Sinar) decide to resurrect Contax as to provide the alternative platform?
I believe that under international law, the Contax system returns back to Zeiss for distributing the rights by the end of this year (10 years after...), without any obligations for Kyocera compensation... and even more... Leica has had adapters out that make H lenses and C645 lenses compatible with the S system... is it that they choose those two systems by luck as to support? ...or is it a future plan as to see what will suit them best for the future? ...I believe the answer is near...
-
If I were a P65+ user who bought the back 5 years ago for around $40,000 and waited patiently for 5 years for the new body I probably would be thoroughly pissed...
If I were a Contax user I probably would be thoroughly pissed as well...
As a Hy6 user I have been pissed for a while... :)
That being said the new body looks great and I wish Phase One all the best...
-
If I were a P65+ user who bought the back 5 years ago for around $40,000 and waited patiently for 5 years for the new body I probably would be thoroughly pissed...
If I were a Contax user I probably would be thoroughly pissed as well...
As a Hy6 user I have been pissed for a while... :)
That being said the new body looks great and I wish Phase One all the best...
+1.
If the XF were compatible with the P series backs I'd be all over one, even at the ludicrous pricing of 8k. Right now IMO it stinks of greed and lack of business sense. On the other hand if in a couple months they came out with a firmware update to give P back compatibility then I'd say, still stinks of greed but that would be brilliant business move - plenty of grumbles, but no rants there.
If I can use a P back on a view camera with just an X sync connection I find it hard to believe that something simple couldn't have been worked out for the XF and the P backs. I mean this is supposed to be the best and most advanced MF camera syste isn't it?
-
+1.
If the XF were compatible with the P series backs I'd be all over one, even at the ludicrous pricing of 8k. Right now IMO it stinks of greed and lack of business sense. On the other hand if in a couple months they came out with a firmware update to give P back compatibility then I'd say, still stinks of greed but that would be brilliant business move - plenty of grumbles, but no rants there.
If I can use a P back on a view camera with just an X sync connection I find it hard to believe that something simple couldn't have been worked out for the XF and the P backs. I mean this is supposed to be the best and most advanced MF camera syste isn't it?
That's why I insist that they left out the P bodies deliberately... Letting the P bodies "in" would mean letting third party backs in as well.... ???
-
J,
Yes, Annie solves a publication's problem of ovepowering a celebrity subject to find time, sit up and behave.
I am impressed with her skill at planning ahead ahead and her pressure-cooker technique for shooting creatively under sharp time constraints, her ability to create no-fail lighting setups that allow quick indoors work, even when doing groups.
Apart from that, i agree one doesnt need much money or the newest stills system these days, but video sure looks like a money pit, from the camera through the postprod computers and the assistants and editors. I think the strongest competition for Phase budgetwise is not Hassy of even Canon but rather the insatiable video ogre.
Btw that second (blue) pic above is neat!
Edmund
Edmund,
As far as Annie goes, people need to understand that she's still the world's foremost celebrity photographer and that carries a lot of water. She can assert her style and will on that A list segment of stars that would leave the set if it was other photographers.
She's always moved around on cameras and from those Vanity Fare videos she was shooting a lot of bright ambient light with strobe, that's probably why she went with a Hasselblad and phase rental back, because that's a stable combination with in lens shutters, easily available on rental.
Also a part of Annie's look comes from heavy post retouching so count the pores photography doesn't push her brand.
I wouldn't worry about Annie, her finances and bookings . She works and has a huge body of iconic imagery that has more value than most 3 story manhattan residences.
If she or anyone is shooting a cover of Vanity Fare on the new Star Wars, with a BTS video attached, I can promise you it doesn't take many calls to get any camera she wants in her hands.
Remember she shot the Queen with a Canon and a zoom. It's difficult to get higher profile than that.
Companies like Phase don't make their money off of photographers at Annie's level, they make it off of people that a dealer tells them the only way to go forward is to write Aston Martin sized checks, get them in their ecosystem and move the business model so there is no other financial option, but to stay with that one brand, completely.
That's why there is proprietary lens mounts, back mounts, etc.
IMO
BC
-
.....................So the moral of the story is buy what you want, or don't . . . enjoy it, make money, make art.
IMO
BC
+1.
-
Wow, 800 Euros for the waist level finder. Way too much!
-
Wow, 800 Euros for the waist level finder. Way too much!
It does double duty as a powder compact during shoots :)
I must say I find the level of negativity here alarming, even by by my own extremely negative standards. The high item prices are to be expected given the small production runs, and because you get Doug or Steve concierge service. Who will probably find a creative way to bundle a WLF in with the system you're buying because keeping you happy keeps them in business.
Of course, if you don't get the appropriate level of service out of your dealer because of your geographical location, he makes you pay everything at list price, or you happen not to be rich, then maybe one of the orphaned Contax P+ systems with WLF that are going to hit ebay will be more cost-effective; at the current inflationary MF price increase rate, and the accelerating rate of used equipment depreciation, in a year or so, a used Pentax 645 will probably cost as much as a Phase lenscap list price.
Edmund
-
Wow, 800 Euros for the waist level finder. Way too much!
A 10 years old Contax 645 waist level finder INIB is about $700.
Not a lot of difference.
-
The Phase camera looks pretty good, and does a lot of good things. I'm sure the internal integration is well done, as noted above, Phase does know how to deliver. Also, the WLF is great to see. It looks like a positive move forward.
That said, there is a small voice nagging about this: it looks like the camera is solving problems that have been around for some 5-10 years. There may be pent-up demand for a new Phase camera and the new product will do quite well. More power to P1.
Yet…. it seems that much of the world is shifting to smaller, lighter gear, and its not clear how this new product addresses such changes. I was kind of hoping for more from the MFDB industry leader. Put another way, if you were on the fence 6 months ago about MFDB or something more portable (fill in the blank as you wish), would this new camera pull you back to MFDB? Does anyone else have similar concerns?
-
It looks like the camera is solving problems that have been around for some 5-10 years.
That's a really good way of putting it. It's great, it solves some incremental issues, and adds a few neat touches. But it's more or less the same picture-taking device we've had since the first digital back-digital body combinations appeared.
It's making worthwhile but modest improvements to the state of MF.
It's certainly not enough to pull me to a system switch.
It's still great to see improvements, but I'm really hoping someone rocks my world with mirrorless MF with a 5-axis stabilised sensor, good high ISO performance, a screen as good as an IPad on the back and Mamiya-7 style lightweight ergonomics. At a price point more like top-end 35mm.
As I said higher in the thread, it would be really hard for me to find the value of the Phase solution over the Pentax 645Z if I was about to buy today.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Is it safe to say that Pentax 645z brand new off of eBay for 6k is better then this? 8k for the body which is 2k more then the pentax lol. Then the 30k+ back you buy separately? I guess capture one pro, customer service, leaf shutter lenses are worth the extra 30k+ haha!
but you know what Annie leb doesn't use a pentax so I am inclined to say Pentax cameras are terrible lol!
-
but you know what Annie leb doesn't use a pentax so I am inclined to say Pentax cameras are terrible lol!
This thread has run it's course for me because as Synn said, why can't he just be left alone to enjoy his new camera.
He's right and in his position I believe it will bring him enjoyment, hopefully more profit and assist in better work, though the camera won't change his talent, desire, or ability to produce.
I have zero issues with this camera, cost not withstanding and am not against anyone using anything.
The only problem I have is when I read this quote from a dealer "Under the continuous direction of its founders it has focused on serving the world’s best photographers, developing tools that help them stand out from an increasingly crowded and homogenous field of okay photographers."
I take exception. Mostly because it's a well worn, desperate, insulting sales line and also because it's just wrong.
I can run a long, deep list of very fine artists that have never used a phase one, or any 645 format.
I also know that David LaChapelle used a pentax 645 film camera for years and his work is still being "emulated" by photographers around the globe.
Back in the film days nobody cared, nobody asked. You shot with what you shot with and there were no forums for anyone to sell a camera or find an issue. Everyone just looked at a photograph and either liked it or didn't.
The image stood on it's own merits.
It really is that simple.
This was shot with a non 645 anything. Actually a "lowly" Canon. End of the day, almost darkness, not on the creative brief. I didn't have to shoot it, though I noticed the talent standing there, the possibility of what I could do and shot it at high iso, using a magliner and an apple crate for a tripod.
A simple throw away shot, that no one asked for it and it was selected and continues to run in all sizes today from 2 story high walls, to every conceivable medium.
For the clients that were paying, for our studio's worth, using a different camera would have made little difference, with some lower iso cameras it wouldn't have happened.
It is a simple photograph, not award winning, not unobtainable, but did fit the creative brief.
That is what mattered.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1dx_bk_wr_beach_la.jpg)
IMO
BC
-
The image stood on it's own merits.
Yes.
e.
-
Hi,
This quote from BC makes a lot of sense: Now bottom line;
Forget cameras, equipment, dealer sales messages, the newest tech, because 99.9% of everything you see, hear and aspire to produce is usually done with two to ten year old tech. At least with still cameras.
What separates the artist, photographer, film maker, illustrator, designer, writer, stylist, producer, on set artists is not his/hers tools, it's his/hers ability to conceptualize an idea, produce it in a unique way and get it in front of the buyers that are empowered to pay real money.
I would agree that a camera, once it meets requirements, plays a minor roll.
That snapshot BC posted of that lovely model in lovely light is a very likeable picture.
Best regards
Erik
-
This thread has run it's course for me because as Synn said, why can't he just be left alone to enjoy his new camera.
He's right and in his position I believe it will bring him enjoyment, hopefully more profit and assist in better work, though the camera won't change his talent, desire, or ability to produce.
I have zero issues with this camera, cost not withstanding and am not against anyone using anything.
The only problem I have is when I read this quote from a dealer "Under the continuous direction of its founders it has focused on serving the world’s best photographers, developing tools that help them stand out from an increasingly crowded and homogenous field of okay photographers."
I take exception. Mostly because it's a well worn, desperate, insulting sales line and also because it's just wrong.
I can run a long, deep list of very fine artists that have never used a phase one, or any 645 format.
I also know that David LaChapelle used a pentax 645 film camera for years and his work is still being "emulated" by photographers around the globe.
Back in the film days nobody cared, nobody asked. You shot with what you shot with and there were no forums for anyone to sell a camera or find an issue. Everyone just looked at a photograph and either liked it or didn't.
The image stood on it's own merits.
It really is that simple.
This was shot with a non 645 anything. Actually a "lowly" Canon. End of the day, almost darkness, not on the creative brief. I didn't have to shoot it, though I noticed the talent standing there, the possibility of what I could do and shot it at high iso, using a magliner and an apple crate for a tripod.
A simple throw away shot, that no one asked for it and it was selected and continues to run in all sizes today from 2 story high walls, to every conceivable medium.
For the clients that were paying, for our studio's worth, using a different camera would have made little difference, with some lower iso cameras it wouldn't have happened.
It is a simple photograph, not award winning, not unobtainable, but did fit the creative brief.
That is what mattered.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1dx_bk_wr_beach_la.jpg)
IMO
BC
I totally agree with the above. The technology on the H5D50 is all I will ever need for the images that I take. If I could buy creativity, I would pay up big time for that!
Stanley
-
Just had a 645 XF in my hands. Nice camera but way too expensive and hyped up for what it is.
Impression was that focus is a bit snappier, and some pros will certainly appreciate integrated flash triggering - but 8k for this is way overpriced and I did not feel that the difference in usability between DF+ and XF is so big as it is made up to be by the salesmen in this forum.
Probably best left to the enthusiast amateur class of people in my view.
-
Just had a 645 XF in my hands. Nice camera but way too expensive and hyped up for what it is.
Impression was that focus is a bit snappier, and some pros will certainly appreciate integrated flash triggering - but 8k for this is way overpriced and I did not feel that the difference in usability between DF+ and XF is so big as it is made up to be by the salesmen in this forum.
Probably best left to the enthusiast amateur class of people in my view.
What specifically have the salesmen on the forum stated about the performance? Is there someone here beside Doug or me? Do we have competition? ;)
And really - if the price is "too high" for the XF Camera, then you really mean for any Phase One Camera they've ever offered, since the difference in price is only $1,000 more than what the previous DF and DF+ kits were listed at.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
What specifically have the salesmen on the forum stated about the performance? Is there someone here beside Doug or me? Do we have competition? ;)
And really - if the price is "too high" for the XF Camera, then you really mean for any Phase One Camera they've ever offered, since the difference in price is only $1,000 more than what the previous DF and DF+ kits were listed at.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
When you read the way you introduce the camera for example:
"the XF Camera System represents a fundamental re-engineering of all key elements in a modern camera system. With robust, aerial-grade mechanics, advanced electronics, a new autofocus platform, new modularity options, new software and customizable touch controls, this system is based on more than 20 years of digital imaging design expertise, a commitment to open systems, and a relentless focus on image quality."
... the expectation level gets ramped up quite a lot. One would think that this new camera is on a completely new level. But its just marketing, new website, new language, lets sell.
As an owner of a DF+, I just wanted to underline the fact that this expectation level has not been met by the product in reality. I would seriously recommend anyone to go to the events offered by the distributers to make up their own minds. I take the camera in my hands, look through the viewfinder - basically the same as the old one to me - as I do not see any more focus points, press focus, yes it is snappy, but then DF+ was not so bad either, then I press shutter ... and the image appears on the back. Ok. Pretty much the same thing as before. The touchscreen interface is ok, but not revolutionary and the wheel dial has its haptic advantages as well.
So what exactly would one pay for? Yes, I forgot:
-> New Autofocus Platform (do not yet see the revolution here)
-> OneTouch User Interface (some might prefer the old way with dials)
-> Modular viewfinders (ok)
It is just my subjective opinion then that this is not a whole lot but is being marketed as the dawn of a new era in modern photography or something. Phase one has great distributors and great marketing, but sensor tech only moves on slowly and all they can do is add features around this and sell it as best as they can.
And I must say, I am sure many will buy into it!
-
When you read the way you introduce the camera for example:
"the XF Camera System represents a fundamental re-engineering of all key elements in a modern camera system. With robust, aerial-grade mechanics, advanced electronics, a new autofocus platform, new modularity options, new software and customizable touch controls, this system is based on more than 20 years of digital imaging design expertise, a commitment to open systems, and a relentless focus on image quality."
... the expectation level gets ramped up quite a lot. One would think that this new camera is on a completely new level. But its just marketing, new website, new language, lets sell.
As an owner of a DF+, I just wanted to underline the fact that this expectation level has not been met by the product in reality. I would seriously recommend anyone to go to the events offered by the distributers to make up their own minds. I take the camera in my hands, look through the viewfinder - basically the same as the old one to me - as I do not see any more focus points, press focus, yes it is snappy, but then DF+ was not so bad either, then I press shutter ... and the image appears on the back. Ok. Pretty much the same thing as before. The touchscreen interface is ok, but not revolutionary and the wheel dial has its haptic advantages as well.
So what exactly would one pay for? Yes, I forgot:
-> New Autofocus Platform (do not yet see the revolution here)
-> OneTouch User Interface (some might prefer the old way with dials)
-> Modular viewfinders (ok)
It is just my subjective opinion then that this is not a whole lot but is being marketed as the dawn of a new era in modern photography or something. Phase one has great distributors and great marketing, but sensor tech only moves on slowly and all they can do is add features around this and sell it as best as they can.
And I must say, I am sure many will buy into it!
Paul - I'm not picking at you, but those are not my words. I did not write that. And when someone posts about "salesmen" on the forum in a generic way, the brush paints wide, and I do get sensitive about it. I just like to be given fair credit or blame. I work hard for it.
On the specific language you are referring to from someone else, I have to say I don't really see anything that points to any performance metric .... at all. It all sounds impressive from a "technical" standpoint, but I don't see a single thing in that paragraph that provides any sort of measuring stick for what this new camera will actually do for someone. And isn't that what it's all about? If I don't see a claim for a specific improvement, and how much it is, then why would I consider buying it at that point?
You know the hyperbolic marketing is going to happen, it's a fact of life with all products. But that doesn't mean you're forced to buy it or off the hook for just accepting that all these vague technical innovations must produce some sort of benefit without quantifying what that benefit is.
The limited benefits you list as examples don't add up as a reason - to you - to upgrade at the price offered, and that's fair. Though I'm horrified at the thought that anyone would prefer the cryptic DF/DF+ LED function panel!
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
What specifically have the salesmen on the forum stated about the performance? Is there someone here beside Doug or me? Do we have competition? ;)
And really - if the price is "too high" for the XF Camera, then you really mean for any Phase One Camera they've ever offered, since the difference in price is only $1,000 more than what the previous DF and DF+ kits were listed at.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Now I am confused, as I though the new XF body only was 7999, i.e 8K and the DF+ was either 4995 or 5995 when first offered. Is the list on the XF 7K, body only? if so then the 2K trade in for a DF+ (till August 31) would make it 5K?
Thanks
Paul
-
Now I am confused, as I though the new XF body only was 7999, i.e 8K and the DF+ was either 4995 or 5995 when first offered. Is the list on the XF 7K, body only? if so then the 2K trade in for a DF+ (till August 31) would make it 5K?
Thanks
Paul
A good point, the context is important Paul. I was referring to one who would purchase a stand alone XF Camera Kit, or in the past someone ordering a brand new DF+ camera kit (no trade in, no digital back bundle price). The DF and DF+ Camera Kits (with 80mm lens) purchased straight up have always been $7,990. And today, the XF Camera Kit with 80mm is $8,990.
Now - that being said - I can't recall selling a DF or DF+ Kit at $7,990 ever. The majority of those purchases came about as a digital back bundle (typically $3,000 - $5,000 off the standard camera kit price). And in cases where someone was purchasing a camera without a digital back, we could usually find a way to get close to the lower cost bundle price for the camera to our client. That's likely where the referenced $4,995, $5,995 pricing comes from.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
A good point, the context is important Paul. I was referring to one who would purchase a stand alone XF Camera Kit, or in the past someone ordering a brand new DF+ camera kit (no trade in, no digital back bundle price). The DF and DF+ Camera Kits (with 80mm lens) purchased straight up have always been $7,990. And today, the XF Camera Kit with 80mm is $8,990.
Now - that being said - I can't recall selling a DF or DF+ Kit at $7,990 ever. The majority of those purchases came about as a digital back bundle (typically $3,000 - $5,000 off the standard camera kit price). And in cases where someone was purchasing a camera without a digital back, we could usually find a way to get close to the lower cost bundle price for the camera to our client. That's likely where the referenced $4,995, $5,995 pricing comes from.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
Steve:
Thanks, that's the way I was thinking also, the $4995 number kept sticking in my mind.
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. I am still shocked by the fact that Phase appears to have overlooked the Credo line, support should have been there at announcement, can't be that hard for a Credo. As you pointed out on another site, the P65+ was and still is a great back, basically the DR of IQ160 without all the IQ interface.
Personally having been in the computer industry for 30 years, my opinion is that that P+ (at least P65+) could have been make to work, or the XF could have been modified to take them, albeit with no more function than a current DF+.
However Phase's go to business model has been a bit strange to me for the past year or so, I am sure I am in the minority there.
My take is pretty simple, really still need Live View for a lot of critical focus needs, especially with these high MP solutions and only CMOS will get there. Live View on the DF+ with the 150 is a very smooth operation and obtaining critical focus very easy with the back's LCD.
Net, the XF/250/150 or now 350 combo will be a very desirable combination. Especially as Phase continues to grow the feature/function of the XF over time.
Paul
-
I went to see the new Phase XF today. It is a solid, well constructed improvement on the previous Mamiya, and wih it one finally gets the impression that lens, back and body have been melded into an integrated set and not assembled from different kits. This really is a Phase camera, not a Phamiya FrankenMaschine. The top body display panel is clean and well legible by my middle aged eyes, the controls wheels are crisp, although they don't really stand out enough for my fat fingers. Diopter adjustment on the prism display is easy, and with my glasses the viewfinder @ F2.8 is nice and sharp, with an outline marked for the crop. In summary, all the camera controls are integrated and well located.
As I expected, focus may be the weak point of the new body at least in office-level light. When I tried a portrait, the focus hunted a bit. There is none of the low-light snapiness of a modern dSLR. Also I focused as best I could on the front eye, @F3.2, and got the back eye in focus on a 3/4 profile shot with the 80 @ 1.5/2 m. I did repeat this test, with the same results; maybe I don't know how to focus, maybe the lens adjustment was off, maybe the AF went for the much brighter and higher contrast eyeball which was by the window. I wouldn't know which, but I certainly wouldn't use this camera under F5.6 without extensive testing.
The Gentleman from Phase to who I spoke (Esben?) told me that this camera has a color sensor surface rather than individual AF points, and that Phase's idea is to make focus "just work" for pros, rather than have the multiple focus points of an SLR. I don't really understand what is meant by that, but then I think we all agree with Synn that I'm not the sharpest knife in the box. My feeling is that the focus system is still a work in progress, and that every user should test that the focus is appropriate to their use.
I tried the chimney fold-down waist-level finder, and it worked as well as can be expected,. I'm a bit nostalgic for the Hasselblad experience, but this is a modern sub-645 camera without the large bright 6x6 image I so nostagically remember - did it really exist? IMHO a rigid vertical enlarged loupe finder might make more sense, especially for repro. But if you're desperate for a WLF it is there, as advertised, with metering.
On balance, my impression is that if you are a user of the Phamiya, and like Phase backs and Schneider optics, then you will love the new FX. It is faster to focus, has less mirror slap, feels much more solid, has a large, pleasant and clean non-distorting finder, speed and aperture displays that middle aged eyes can read even in average light, customisable controls, and has been designed from the start to integrate well physically and logically with the superb Phase backs. The XF is a quality product, specifically designed for the needs of the existing customerbase; it has a COPAL shutter rated at 350K shots, a record in my book, and I believe that Phase will make good on their clear intent to make a tool that is totally reliable, while providing the best possible files available from an MF camera. However if you want an MF camera that is reactive or nearer in ergonomics to a dSLR, then you might still well prefer Hasselblad's TrueFocus H series or Leica's S model, or even the cheap but very modern Pentax.
Edmund
-
The XF seems like a very well engineered medium format body but in the classical mode. Will we ever see a mirrorless body with a 645 CMOS sensor from Phase or Hasselblad that will handle the Hasselblad H or Phase lenses?
-
The XF seems like a very well engineered medium format body but in the classical mode. Will we ever see a mirrorless body with a 645 CMOS sensor from Phase or Hasselblad that will handle the Hasselblad H or Phase lenses?
A mirrorless will need an extension adapter to take those lenses.
You can mount a Phase back on an Alpa; probably at some point the mirrorless experience will be feasible there with the very compact Alpa lenses.
Edmund
-
Will we ever see a mirrorless body with a 645 CMOS sensor from Phase or Hasselblad that will handle the Hasselblad H or Phase lenses?
I see a three step transition, if it happpens at all:
1) CMOS sensor options expand to cover all "medium format" sizes -- or it is decided that something like the current 44x33mm is as big as they are going to get.
2) A body with EVF instead of OVF is introduced (no point having separate backs, which add bulk), initially with a few compact "native mirrorless" lenses plus adaptors for all manner of MF SLR lenses.
3) fill out the native lens system.
The familar argument about the AF performance advantage flipping mirror cameras barely applies in MF, so the biggest delay might be waiting on the CMOS transition.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?" 8)
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/1s2_shower_v3.jpg)
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.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/hollywood_script_sm_2000px_web.jpg)
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.)
-
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...
-
100 % right
totally agree about s2
best.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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