Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on April 02, 2016, 05:08:18 pm
-
Another review. As usual, the Hassy's screen and the XF's focus get skewered, while XF build quality and Hassy True Focus get complimented.
More interestingly, the author finds differences in the file quality. As C1 is usually stellar, and the chips identical, I get the impression that Phase's profile for the 50C may need improving - a bad profile will explode noise. Or else the author had a very bad Phase sample - or an extremely good Sony chip in the Hasselblad.
As concerns the AF of the Phase, I think the company should really fix the firmware rather than keep explaining that reviewers are incapable or biased. There is no reason to think the new hardware is less good than the competition, but there are simply too many credible reports to write off from competent users who find the XF not focusing well enough - while very many are customers are clearly content. Maybe there is some sort of gremlin which affects some cameras and not others.
http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4757
Each of these two cameras, and for that matter each of these two camera systems, have their weak points and their strong points. For myself, as you have probably surmised from the introduction, I found the Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi to be the better camera for my needs. This may or may not be the case for still life photographers who shoot tethered in the studio all the time with the camera on a tripod. For those folks, the poor autofocus of the Phase One XF may not be an issue. For myself, the autofocus abilities of the H5D and the low noise at High ISOs, combined with the reliability factor and the user interface sealed the deal for me.
Talking with several photographers working with medium format systems, there are quite a few top-end portrait photographers who choose a hybrid camera: mating the H5D body with a Phase One IQ series digital back. With that combo you get the practical user interface of the H5D up front and the stellar LCD interface on the Phase One digital back. You also retain a camera that can focus accurately. In essence, you get the best of both worlds–unless you want to shoot at high ISOs. This is a workaround to be sure. You have to think one of these manufacturers would get it totally right here at some point. Amazingly, Phase One designed the perfect camera but failed in several key aspects like in the area of autofocus, ergonomics (at least for me) and high ISO noise.
Edmund
-
Interesting read as always.
Phase did seem to get the least noise floor out of the 50MP chip, at least to what I saw when I used the 50MP Phase and I have assumed that a firmware update might resolve this in the future. From what I have seen from the 645Z, Phase has more room left. However I really don't expect too much from ISO 6400 anyway, which is the top end on the 350 if I remember correctly.
The AF comments, interesting as in my use the XF is very accurate and extremely fast to focus. Not sure why some photographers seem to still have issues and others (myself included) see the AF as vastly superior performer over the DF or DF+. I have never used True Focus and a Hasselblad body so I can only compare Phase One AF current over past.
Paul C
-
Another review. As usual, the Hassy's screen and the XF's focus get skewered, while XF build quality and Hassy True Focus get complimented.
More interestingly, the author finds differences in the file quality. As C1 is usually stellar, and the chips identical, I get the impression that Phase's profile for the 50C may need improving - a bad profile will explode noise. Or else the author had a very bad Phase sample.
As concerns the AF of the Phase, I think the company should really fix the firmware rather than keep explaining that reviewers are incapable or biased. There is no reason to think the new hardware is less good than the competition, but there are simply too many credible reports to write off from competent users who find the XF not focusing well enough - while many are content.
http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4757
Edmund
I am testing the XF as we speak, my only previous experience has been with the 645DF+ and will do a demo of the H5D-50c a couple of weeks from now.
But I would not agree that the XF autofocus is bad at all as long as you don't recompose. I find it snappy and accurate, even in low light. I agree with everything he wrote on focus recompose though... Have a test shoot tomorrow with a friend, if it was for a client, wide open apertures would not be in the cards.
Love the system otherwise. I love good design and the danes have certainly succeeded there. I hope they will announce a better solution for recomposing before I make a decision whether to enter medium format or stay with 35mm.
-
It *might be possible* that all XF cameras do not focus equally well. There are many many happy customers, but also some people who are not habitual complainers who indicate issues. This review in particular is worrisome as it seems overly fair and balanced - read the last para - and is clearly written by someone who wants a camera for pro use and knows how to use a camera. Somebody who would call an H5 with a Phase back the perfect camera cannot exactly be accused of being a fanboy of either brand.
Edmund
I am testing the XF as we speak, my only previous experience has been with the 645DF+ and will do a demo of the H5D-50c a couple of weeks from now.
But I would not agree that the XF autofocus is bad at all as long as you don't recompose. I find it snappy and accurate, even in low light. I agree with everything he wrote on focus recompose though... Have a test shoot tomorrow with a friend, if it was for a client, wide open apertures would not be in the cards.
Love the system otherwise. I love good design and the danes have certainly succeeded there. I hope they will announce a better solution for recomposing before I make a decision whether to enter medium format or stay with 35mm.
-
Focus recompose is all that is in the cards for Phase, at least that is what has been stated for now. The only issue I have noted is due to the size of the center AF point on the XF (not sure if the entire CMOS AF chip is being used or not) but it's sometimes hard to get AF to pin point on single finer objects, mainly distant ones.
Feature set 2 added some improvements to the AF, mainly for low contrast/low light operations.
The only real issue I have with the AF, is noise. Older Mamiya Schneider LS lenses, like the 80 or 55mm both have loud and slow motors. The AF on the Blue label lenses I have tried is much quieter and seems a lot more tempered. Nothing to do with accuracy I realize.
Paul C
-
"As long as you don't recompose" - so you're stuck shooting stopped down or center focused images? I haven't used the XF but have been shootig H5X for a year and a half and I thought this was a fair review - and he's very upfront about the testing time differences he had with the cameras. It's clearly intented as a working pro's experiential review vs. a comprehensive one.
-Doug
-
"Lightroom affords the exact same image quality as can be had using Hasselblad’s Phocus software." Is there anything at all to back that up, other than they had access to the code?
I am not sure how the Hasselblad files were evaluated, but it appears to be just using Lightroom whereas the Phase files were exported from its raw converter, being Capture One. For a true comparison you should export the Hassy files out of Phocus. The Phase therefore "should" win, but didn't. I feel that the Hassy system is better all around than Phase having tried H2+Phase and now H3DII. Focus and recompose doesn't work so Hasselblad H4 and above wins there also.
-
It would be interesting to compare the actual resolution present in a P1 IQ350 file focused and recomposed vs a 1dX II/D5 using a corner AF point. ;)
My bet is that at f2.8 the pro DSLRs with less than half the resolution may resolve more.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
It would be interesting to compare the actual resolution present in a P1 IQ350 file focused and recomposed vs a 1dX II/D5 using a corner AF point. ;)
My bet is that at f2.8 the pro DSLRs with less than half the resolution may resolve more.
Cheers,
Bernard
I am afraid you may be right.
Edmund
-
This post got me thinking that I've noticed somethings interesting over time:
Over the course of the past 15 years, the following have been my primary digital cameras in the following order:
Canon 1Ds and then 5D
Nikon D3x
Phase One P30+ on Contax 645
Nikon D800 (current)
Leica S (current)
I've shot a wide variety of lenses on all of them, including the Canon 85mm 1.2 on the canon bodies, various wide aperture AF lenses on the Nikon bodies, and various wide aperture lenses on the Leica S (100mm 2.0, among others). When shooting with wide aperture lenses, I tend to shoot predominately at the widest aperture (otherwise, what's the point?).
I shoot primarily people.
Upon reflection, I've noticed something: the only one where I had significant numbers of out of focus shots due to focus and recompose is the Phase One P30+/Contax. It was so bad that I sent it back to the dealer to have it checked out and spent a lot of time on the phone with them. As far as they could tell, there was nothing "wrong" with the back per se.
Note that with the Nikon and canon bodies, I seldom bothered to use the outer focus points: I just left it in the center. So I was doing focus and recompose (and still am, with the D800). And the Leica S, of course, only has a single focus point. On the canon, Nikon, and Leica S bodies, focus & recompose presented/presents no problems for me at all; the overwhelming majority of shots are in focus, even when full length portraits, the most challenging scenario for focus and recompose in my experience, I.e.., you focus on the eye and then have to swing the lens way down to get a full body shot. With the Phase/Contax, I had about a 75% success rate with half-body focus and recompose; with full length shots, it was far far less, maybe 20%.
All of this leads me to wonder not whether something is *wrong* with Phase backs in a focus and recompose scenario, but whether there's something *different* with Phase backs that would dictate a different focus and recompose technique than with most other cameras.
Of course, correlation isn't causation. That is, the commonality may not be Phase backs' performance in a focus and recompose scenario, but maybe instead there's something similar about the Contax body and the XF body dictating a different focus and recompose technique than with other bodies...
-
Deleted.
Edmund
This post got me thinking that I've noticed somethings interesting over time:
Over the course of the past 15 years, the following have been my primary digital cameras in the following order:
Canon 1Ds and then 5D
Nikon D3x
Phase One P30+ on Contax 645
Nikon D800 (current)
Leica S (current)
I've shot a wide variety of lenses on all of them, including the Canon 85mm 1.2 on the canon bodies, various wide aperture AF lenses on the Nikon bodies, and various wide aperture lenses on the Leica S (100mm 2.0, among others). When shooting with wide aperture lenses, I tend to shoot predominately at the widest aperture (otherwise, what's the point?).
I shoot primarily people.
Upon reflection, I've noticed something: the only one where I had significant numbers of out of focus shots due to focus and recompose is the Phase One P30+/Contax. It was so bad that I sent it back to the dealer to have it checked out and spent a lot of time on the phone with them. As far as they could tell, there was nothing "wrong" with the back per se.
Note that with the Nikon and canon bodies, I seldom bothered to use the outer focus points: I just left it in the center. So I was doing focus and recompose (and still am, with the D800). And the Leica S, of course, only has a single focus point. On the canon, Nikon, and Leica S bodies, focus & recompose presented/presents no problems for me at all; the overwhelming majority of shots are in focus, even when full length portraits, the most challenging scenario for focus and recompose in my experience, I.e.., you focus on the eye and then have to swing the lens way down to get a full body shot. With the Phase/Contax, I had about a 75% success rate with half-body focus and recompose; with full length shots, it was far far less, maybe 20%.
All of this leads me to wonder not whether something is *wrong* with Phase backs in a focus and recompose scenario, but whether there's something *different* with Phase backs that would dictate a different focus and recompose technique than with most other cameras.
Of course, correlation isn't causation. That is, the commonality may not be Phase backs' performance in a focus and recompose scenario, but maybe instead there's something similar about the Contax body and the XF body dictating a different focus and recompose technique than with other bodies...
-
"Lightroom affords the exact same image quality as can be had using Hasselblad’s Phocus software." Is there anything at all to back that up, other than they had access to the code?
I haven't read the review but in my experience Phocus produces a *much* better file than lightroom.
-
I haven't read the review but in my experience Phocus produces a *much* better file than lightroom.
Much is a big word, and i cant disagree, but the difference isnt that big.
The article is spot on. My XF system is on its way to Danmark as we speak.. For what? Focus issues!!
-
Edmund -
Thanks for posting a link to the review and comparison. I tried to be as balanced as possible so that both companies could learn from it.
As for the AF issues on the XF. I have talked with several other photographers that have worked extensively with the XF, some who we all know of and have seen his images, and they all said it was nearly worthless in use. I found the same when I tested it out. If some folks have much better AF with their XF samples then that is worrying. If the AF was as good as the marketing materials suggest then I would have purchased the XF.
As for Phocus vs. Lightroom, I did do a few sample tests working up images in both software platforms. I didn't see any huge differences but I will have to do that test again after reading the comments here.
As I said in the end of the comparison, both platforms have issues that have to be overcome to create stellar images. Hopefully one of the companies can make a camera that solves these issues.
Cheers, Michael Clark
www.michaelclarkphoto.com
Another review. As usual, the Hassy's screen and the XF's focus get skewered, while XF build quality and Hassy True Focus get complimented.
More interestingly, the author finds differences in the file quality. As C1 is usually stellar, and the chips identical, I get the impression that Phase's profile for the 50C may need improving - a bad profile will explode noise. Or else the author had a very bad Phase sample - or an extremely good Sony chip in the Hasselblad.
As concerns the AF of the Phase, I think the company should really fix the firmware rather than keep explaining that reviewers are incapable or biased. There is no reason to think the new hardware is less good than the competition, but there are simply too many credible reports to write off from competent users who find the XF not focusing well enough - while very many are customers are clearly content. Maybe there is some sort of gremlin which affects some cameras and not others.
http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4757
Edmund
-
Edmund -
Thanks for posting a link to the review and comparison. I tried to be as balanced as possible so that both companies could learn from it.
As for the AF issues on the XF. I have talked with several other photographers that have worked extensively with the XF, some who we all know of and have seen his images, and they all said it was nearly worthless in use. I found the same when I tested it out. If some folks have much better AF with their XF samples then that is worrying. If the AF was as good as the marketing materials suggest then I would have purchased the XF.
As for Phocus vs. Lightroom, I did do a few sample tests working up images in both software platforms. I didn't see any huge differences but I will have to do that test again after reading the comments here.
As I said in the end of the comparison, both platforms have issues that have to be overcome to create stellar images. Hopefully one of the companies can make a camera that solves these issues.
Cheers, Michael Clark
www.michaelclarkphoto.com
If you're ever in New York I'd love to meet up with you for additional testing.
I don't know what's up with the body you tested, or how your preferred techniques might not be meshing with the body. All I know is I've now worked with literally hundreds of photographers testing the XF and your comments of the XF focus being "nearly worthless" don't match up at all with that experience. The XF focus is fast, precise, and works well in situations previous medium format bodies fail miserably at.
-
For those that are interested, before I did the Phase One XF vs. Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi comparison, I also wrote up an extensive review of the H5D 50c WiFi on my blog as well. Here is the link:
http://blog.michaelclarkphoto.com/?p=4601
Cheers, Michael
-
Doug -
Thanks for the offer. That certainly wasn't my experience. But with such a short time with the camera there could have been other issues. Apparently I wasn't the only one who had issues with the AF on the XF from reading the above posts.
I am not am not sure when I will be out in NYC next. I'd love to take you up on that offer.
Alternate question for you: Does Phase One ever ship out cameras to photographers to try out for a few days? A few Phase One dealers said I could rent it and try it out at $1500/day. Hasselblad sent me a loaner camera free of charge with two lenses and three batteries for 5 days and paid shipping both ways. I couldn't find any Phase dealers that would offer a similar loaner. Because Hasselblad sent me one for 5 days it really allowed me to test out the camera throughly before buying which is something that is very difficult to figure out in a half day with a dealer. Just thought I'd ask.
Cheers, Michael
If you're ever in New York I'd love to meet up with you for additional testing.
I don't know what's up with the body you tested, or how your preferred techniques might not be meshing with the body. All I know is I've now worked with literally hundreds of photographers testing the XF and your comments of the XF focus being "nearly worthless" don't match up at all with that experience. The XF focus is fast, precise, and works well in situations previous medium format bodies fail miserably at.
-
Much is a big word, and i cant disagree, but the difference isnt that big.
The difference is big... more than a stop of clear DR advantage and sharper too with Phocus when trying my CF-39MS, but it was the same with my ex-528c too....
-
The difference is big... more than a stop of clear DR advantage and sharper too with Phocus when trying my CF-39MS, but it was the same with my ex-528c too....
Really? Didnt know that. I have used both phocus and LR with H4D-40 and H3DII-50...
-
Really? Didnt know that. I have used both phocus and LR with H4D-40 and H3DII-50...
Try again with a high contrast scene... it is the same with everybody....
-
After reading some of the responses here I went in and tried out a few more images in both Lightroom and Phocus.
For High ISO images (ISO 1600 and above) the noise reduction in Phocus couldn't match the excellent noise reduction in Lightroom. So for that scenario, which might be rare for lots of folks shooting with these cameras, Lightroom seems a better option.
When I worked up some landscapes shot at ISO 100, Phocus definitely had less noise overall in the image and also showed a wider range of colors that were truer to the scene.
I am not sure at this point I can say definitively that Phocus is always better than Lightroom but for a lot of situations it seems like it will be slightly better.
Side Note: This is the same when working up Nikon images in Nikon Capture vs. Lightroom. In Nikon Capture there is less overall grain in the image and excellent color. Lightroom is a hairs breadth away from Nikon Capture but offers a much nicer interface and fast speed.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I will continue to test them both as Lightroom is my main raw processor.
Cheer, Michael
The difference is big... more than a stop of clear DR advantage and sharper too with Phocus when trying my CF-39MS, but it was the same with my ex-528c too....
-
"Lightroom affords the exact same image quality as can be had using Hasselblad’s Phocus software." Is there anything at all to back that up, other than they had access to the code?
I am not sure how the Hasselblad files were evaluated, but it appears to be just using Lightroom whereas the Phase files were exported from its raw converter, being Capture One. For a true comparison you should export the Hassy files out of Phocus. The Phase therefore "should" win, but didn't. I feel that the Hassy system is better all around than Phase having tried H2+Phase and now H3DII. Focus and recompose doesn't work so Hasselblad H4 and above wins there also.
Indeed. No way I would ever let Lightroom touch my HB files. The difference is clearly visible. Color, corrections and noise is definitely visibly different between Phocus and Lightroom. Personally I find the 1 focus point with true focus even more preferable than the kazillion focuspoints on the Nikon D800e. With the HB I can put focus where I want, with the nikon I seem to want focus always on places where no focuspoint seems to be.
-
With the HB I can put focus where I want, with the nikon I seem to want focus always on places where no focuspoint seems to be.
Not only that but what type of sensor are you selecting?
Sometimes less is indeed more, in the D5 and D500 there are 153 autofocus sensors. 55 are selectable, 99 function as cross sensors. ( So obviously there are cross sensors you can't select)
Add lenses to the mix and 12-24mm, 60mm, and 600mm lenses all drop the outer columns as cross sensors leaving 63 cross sensors, in the total 153 sensors of which we can select 55. Not clear if all those dropped are not selectable anyway.
The 200-400mm, 500mm, all f/5.6 or slower lenses, and all non-AF-S lenses drop all outer columns as cross sensors, leaving only the middle 45 as cross sensors.
(facts from Bythom.com)
Any chance the shot moment will have passed by the time you have sorted it out?
Those who wish for multiple sensors should be careful in case the wish comes true.
-
Yes, the simplicity of having only one focus point. Point it to where you want it to be sharp, recompose and capture is one of the appealing features of the HB over my Nikon. Nice to hear I am not the only one that thinks sometimes less is more in this case :)
Now if the focussing of the HB would only be as fast as with my 24-70VR.... (can't have it all)
-
True focus is essential to me when I shoot. I had an h4d-50 and it almost always nailed focus. I took advantage of the trade in deal they had in November and got an H5D-50c wifi for $16,000 (I missed the Christmas deal by one month so I basically gave away my H4D which pissed me off). My issue now is the speed of true focus on the H5D is really, really slow to lock focus. If it is a dark studio I can't even use it anymore sometimes, other times it seems ok.
I Think Phase One markieting department is amazing as well as the raw processing of Capture One, and this has to be why more pros seem to go with Phase. I have two friends that use phase IQ and DF plus, and they warn clients before the shoot that the equipment is finicky and slow, not the way to start a shoot. They also have to shoot tethered to make sure they nail focus. I have to say when I saw the XF I was envious! It has the integration of the back and body like Hasselblad, customizable buttons, and better autofocus. After hearing about the bad focusing of the XF , I'm glad I have my Hassy.
-
Michael is an accomplished action/adventure photographer. However his review of the XF350 is inaccurate. I would suggest partnering up with a photographer who shoots with the XF system on a regular basis. Not sure how helpful to make assertions when you have limited experience with a camera system. I would gladly rent an IQ350 and meet Michael to do some photography. He could give me some pointers of the actual use of Hasselblad system. I have only shoot with the H1/H2 and not the latest models.
Upon a quick reading of Michael’s blog I noticed several statements which are not factual.
The article asserts that the Auto-focus on the XF is poor. This is not true.
The article makes some incorrect remarks about LS glass and flash syncing.
His opinions about the Reliability based upon “Almost everyone has to send in their XF for service” are disingenuous and could greatly benefit from fact checking.
AUTO FOCUS
I have shot over 10,000 frames with my XF and have a very high percentage of sharp images. Recently I shot three magazine covers for a national sports magazine. The photo editors were very happy with the take. No problems with focus on the XF.
This is how I do it.
In my long term experience in photography I have found that the majority of the time when a photographer has a lot of out of focus images it's due to operator issues and poor camera technique. Here’s just a few examples.
1. Out of focus VS camera shake/motion Blur. It's vital to remember when handholding any camera to use at twice the focus length of the lens as a shutter speed. This is especially true when shooting on a MFD camera.
2. Diopter adjustment. On the view finder of the XF is a Diopter adjustment. A) Focus on an object. B) While looking through the viewfinder - turn the dial until the image is crisp.
3. Holding the camera. The elbows should be in. One hand cups underneath the lens while the other hand holds the camera. When you place your (non-shutter) hand over the lens it's easy to actually push the lens down a bit while shooting causing a bit of motion blur.
4. Focus assist light. Go into the menu of the XF and you can adjust the brightness to help the camera/lens snap into focus.
5. Focus trim. Is not only for dialing in the sweet spot of a lens. The most important use of focus trimming is when your camera in lock into place and you chose not to focus and recompose. For example when shooting a vertical magazine cover featuring three quarter photograph of a woman wearing a swimsuit. You can focus on her midriff area and simply apply a minus/negative amount of focus trim. This reduces the focus and brings the focus the eyes.
This also comes into play when you have a background that is extremely contrasty or backlighted and the auto focus has the tendency to back focus leaving the foreground subject blurry, simple dial in a positive amount of focus trim. It’s pretty straightforward to use.
SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH 35mm LS f/3.5
Yes it does sync at 1/1600 of a second. I own this lens. The strobe system I use is Profoto combined with the Profoto Air Sync remote.
I also shoot with an LS 28, LS 55, LS 110, LS150 and they all sync at 1/1600 of second with Profoto Air Sync remote on the Profoto packs.
The LS 40-80 Zoom syncs at about 1/800 to 1/1000 with Profoto air sync.
RELIABILITY
(In the blog it says everyone who has a Phase One system has to send it in for repair?)
This is not true.
I don’t climb mountains or jump out of planes. Just do advertising and editorial photography. My Phase digital back has about XX,XXX frames on it. I’m a bit shy to say how many…..it has never been to Denmark for service. My XF has as mentioned about 10,000 on the shutter. Never been in for service. My Phase One system lives in a Gura Gear backpack (the 34L) I wish I could say that I wrap my gear in bubble wrap, most readers of the forum would say Jeff please please put a little protection around your gear……
Here is a picture of my XF frame counter.
(http://www.jefferysalter.com/files/xf_frame_counter.jpg)
-
Everyone is overlooking the biggest bit in the article:
"But, I will also say this, I only had one afternoon with the Phase One XF and the IQ350 back and I had five days to try out the Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi before deciding to purchasing that system."
It takes a few days of use to really get comfortable with a system, you have to to shoot, look at files, shoot more, look at more files...
-Joe
-
If it is a dark studio I can't even use it anymore sometimes, other times it seems ok.
Have you tried to turn the AF illuminator ON?
-
5. Focus trim. Is not only for dialing in the sweet spot of a lens. The most important use of focus trimming is when your camera in lock into place and you chose not to focus and recompose. For example when shooting a vertical magazine cover featuring three quarter photograph of a woman wearing a swimsuit. You can focus on her midriff area and simply apply a minus/negative amount of focus trim. This reduces the focus and brings the focus the eyes.
This also comes into play when you have a background that is extremely contrasty or backlighted and the auto focus has the tendency to back focus leaving the foreground subject blurry, simple dial in a positive amount of focus trim. It’s pretty straightforward to use.
How do you practically do this on the fly? Seems like a very awkward solution. Why not use live view and focus manually, since I'm guessing you are already on a tripod to go into a submenu to change focus trimming for a lens?
-
Hi Michael,
I've been working with Phase One and Hasselblad systems as a freelance DIT for more than 6 years. I also work at a rental house that happens to be a regional distributer for Phase One, amongst other brands. We used to carry Hasselblad systems but we got rid of them about 4 years ago because of how unreliable they were and how bad their customer support was. I have access to pretty much everything that Phase One makes and at least 4 XF bodies at any given time. I also regularly work with 4 photographers who own Phase One systems. I may also be a tiny bit biased.
I would like to point out a few factual errors in your blog post as well as a few subjective observations that I've made.
Auto Focus: Having used at least ten different XF bodies with many different lenses and backs, I've found the autofocusing to be largely consistent if you put the known limitations into consideration. The amount of people online who claim that they can't get sharp images using the XF really surprises me. In my experience, when an image appears out of focus with the XF, it's usually pilot error. I've seen photographers using extremely low shutter speeds with natural light while handheld, shooting a moving subject while they themselves are moving, and thinking that "focus recompose" means they can take a few steps back and to the side while recomposing. Assuming you have a rough idea of how focusing works, you probably have faulty body, lens, or a bad combination of back, lens and body. One of the main reasons a lot of professionals I work with go with the XF and IQ3 is for the 5 year warranty and uptime guarantee. If you have any issues with anything at all (even if it's completely your fault), Phase One will make sure you have a working system in your hands within 24 hours and in our case, we would swap your faulty system with one of our tried and tested rental units until the loaner arrives from Copenhagen. I generally find that people who put down over $30,000 for a camera system will not hesitate to take advantage of this feature. It baffles me how anyone when faced with AF issues after spending that much money, would choose to go online and complain on some random forum instead of contacting their dealer immediately to get a replacement. In our entire region, we've only had one body returned to Phaseone to have the focusing system recalibrated and two situations where the lens was a bad copy, one of which was sorted with AFMA. Regarding focusing in low light, as others mentioned, the XF should turn on the AF assist light by default if it can't focus using ambient light. You must have had it turned off. As for "True Focus", try putting your Hasselblad on a tripod and pointing it at something still then initiate autofocus a couple of times. If you look at the focus scale on top of the lens, you'll notice that it will refocus each time at a slightly different point even when nothing is moving. This level of inconsistency might not make much of a difference when stopped down but try nailing focus with the 100mm at f2.2 on the H5D-50c. The XF, on the other hand, won't even attempt to shift the lens if nothing moved when you refocus and focusing with a 150mm at f2.8 has never been an issue for me. Another great feature that's been introduced in the H5D is True Focus 2, which seems to just take twice as long to focus as the H4D without actually being any more reliable.
Image Quality: Knowing you only had 7 out of 200 images in focus, I'm not surprised that you consider the images coming from the Phaseone to be soft. What constitutes as "sharp" nowadays is very subjective anyway. I know some photographers who are more than happy with images shot handheld with the old Canon 24-70 at f2.8 on a 5Ds at ISO 800 and others who won't accept anything not shot with Rodenstocks at f8 with a 60mp Dalsa. A few photographers who switched from Hasselblad to Phase One this past year mentioned to me how what they thought was sharp on their Hasselblads looks soft now in comparison. A lot of others couldn't tell the difference and don't really care. I personally did a side by side image quality test between the IQ250 with 645DF+ and the H5D-50c when it first started shipping. In terms of sharpness, the images from the Hasselblad looked great until you put them next to the ones shot with the Phase One at equivalent focal lengths. That was especially apparent when comparing the zoom lenses and pretty much any of the primes when shot wide open. The only Hasselblad lens that could actually out resolve the 50mp sensor is the 120 macro. As for high ISO performance, in my side by side testing I used Capture One to process Phase One files and Phocus for Hasselblad. The default values of the two different processing engines gave different noise characteristics but I managed to get them to look quite similar with a bit of tweaking on Capture one. With the right settings, Capture one is able to remove so much noise from the highlights to the point where you can't really tell the difference between ISO 100 and 6400 unless you look closely at the shadows. Phocus seemed to sacrifice a lot of detail when applying noise reduction and it required playing around with the sharpness to get a lot of it back. When noise reduction is turned off completely, both cameras gave very similar levels of noise (it is the same sensor after all). I also noticed that the time that Phocus took to generate previews of high ISO files was significantly longer that Capture One and the time increased exponentially the higher the ISO was. I think it's a bit unfair that your only comparison is between two completely different photos, especially considering that shutter speed contributes a lot to shadow noise on both cameras and having details in your photos also helps.
Ergonomics: This is obviously very subjective. I just wanted to note that the touch screen on the XF can be locked by swiping to the right and tapping "touch" and the one on the back can be locked by tapping the the little speech bubble on the bottom right and then tapping the key icon. The interface is designed to be almost completely usable without ever touching either screens. The only thing you can't access without touching the screen is the new focus stacking, HDR, and timelapse tools that were introduced last month.
User interface: You mention that mirror up on the XF has to be put up for every shot. This is simply not true.
Flash Sync: As Jeffery mentioned, all the lenses sync up to 1/1600 with the exception of the 40-80 and 240. They're designed to sync at 1/1000 when stopped down but I notice that you can get away with syncing at 1/1600 with just a bit of vignetting on the 40-80.
Reliability: As I mentioned before, Phase One are confident enough with their system that they're willing to include a 5 year warranty and uptime guarantee with every new system. Good luck getting that from Hasselblad. I've seen Phase One cameras working smoothly in a quarry where the temperature exceeded 60 degrees celsius, an indoor ski slope where it was -15, crazy sand storms, water park rides, in underwater housings, and on top of the tallest building in the world. In all theses situations, the photographers were confident enough to not bring a backup.
Finally, you mentioned this:
I have Elinchrom’s amazing Hi-Sync technology, which allows me to sync strobes at up to 1/8000th second with my Nikons if I really need to freeze motion using strobes.
I'd like to point out that your shutter speed does not make much of a difference when you're trying to freeze motion using strobes. It's your flash duration that matters.
Mellifluous felicitations,
Ahmed
-
Image Quality: Knowing you only had 7 out of 200 images in focus, I'm not surprised that you consider the images coming from the Phaseone to be soft. What constitutes as "sharp" nowadays is very subjective anyway. I know some photographers who are more than happy with images shot handheld with the old Canon 24-70 at f2.8 on a 5Ds at ISO 800 and others who won't accept anything not shot with Rodenstocks at f8 with a 60mp Dalsa. A few photographers who switched from Hasselblad to Phase One this past year mentioned to me how what they thought was sharp on their Hasselblads looks soft now in comparison. A lot of others couldn't tell the difference and don't really care. I personally did a side by side image quality test between the IQ250 with 645DF+ and the H5D-50c when it first started shipping. In terms of sharpness, the images from the Hasselblad looked great until you put them next to the ones shot with the Phase One at equivalent focal lengths. That was especially apparent when comparing the zoom lenses and pretty much any of the primes when shot wide open. The only Hasselblad lens that could actually out resolve the 50mp sensor is the 120 macro. As for high ISO performance, in my side by side testing I used Capture One to process Phase One files and Phocus for Hasselblad. The default values of the two different processing engines gave different noise characteristics but I managed to get them to look quite similar with a bit of tweaking on Capture one. With the right settings, Capture one is able to remove so much noise from the highlights to the point where you can't really tell the difference between ISO 100 and 6400 unless you look closely at the shadows. Phocus seemed to sacrifice a lot of detail when applying noise reduction and it required playing around with the sharpness to get a lot of it back. When noise reduction is turned off completely, both cameras gave very similar levels of noise (it is the same sensor after all). I also noticed that the time that Phocus took to generate previews of high ISO files was significantly longer that Capture One and the time increased exponentially the higher the ISO was. I think it's a bit unfair that your only comparison is between two completely different photos, especially considering that shutter speed contributes a lot to shadow noise on both cameras and having details in your photos also helps.
It's likely given his short use of the time, and the seeming lack of input from an experienced dealer during his testing, that he may not have realized that Capture One's default noise reduction is quite aggressive, and that if you're not afraid of a little grain (provided it's even and pretty) that turning it down benefits sharpness. Using all-defaults is a reasonably defensible method for comparing cameras in a head-to-head review, but it's not very representative of what the average user of a given camera will do once they learn the system inside and out.
Like most defaults in Capture One the default noise reduction can be permanently changed at the click of a button. So if you like it lower than when installed, you can set the default to be lower and not have to worry about messing with those settings. The Film Grain tool is also a great asset when shooting at very high ISO. Counter intuitively adding MORE grain to already moderately grainy high ISO image sometimes helps create the look by shaping the way that grain is rendered. Most of the Details styles we have in our Capture One Preset Pack (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/dt-capture-one-style-pack-free-demo/) are with lower than default noise reduction.
There's also something to be said for lowering the threshold of sharpening from the default of 1 to 0.5 or even 0.0.
Anyway, in general saying that Phase One (properly used) doesn't produce razor sharp images is just not right. But, like many systems, it's not unusual to need a few days of experience before really knowing what can be gotten out of it (even if you're an earnest reviewer and a talented photographer). To Michael's question earlier... yes, as a dealer we provide a number of ways for clients to test a back before purchasing.
-
Doug, my Macs work out of the box. You want the customer to have a good C1 default experience? Give him a good C1 default experience.
Edmund
It's likely given his short use of the time, and the seeming lack of input from an experienced dealer during his testing, that he may not have realized that Capture One's default noise reduction is quite aggressive, and that if you're not afraid of a little grain (provided it's even and pretty) that turning it down benefits sharpness. Using all-defaults is a reasonably defensible method for comparing cameras in a head-to-head review, but it's not very representative of what the average user of a given camera will do once they learn the system inside and out.
Like most defaults in Capture One the default noise reduction can be permanently changed at the click of a button. So if you like it lower than when installed, you can set the default to be lower and not have to worry about messing with those settings. The Film Grain tool is also a great asset when shooting at very high ISO. Counter intuitively adding MORE grain to already moderately grainy high ISO image sometimes helps create the look by shaping the way that grain is rendered. Most of the Details styles we have in our Capture One Preset Pack (https://digitaltransitions.com/product/dt-capture-one-style-pack-free-demo/) are with lower than default noise reduction.
There's also something to be said for lowering the threshold of sharpening from the default of 1 to 0.5 or even 0.0.
Anyway, in general saying that Phase One (properly used) doesn't produce razor sharp images is just not right. But, like many systems, it's not unusual to need a few days of experience before really knowing what can be gotten out of it (even if you're an earnest reviewer and a talented photographer). To Michael's question earlier... yes, as a dealer we provide a number of ways for clients to test a back before purchasing.
-
:o Whao! So many people jumping in to defend Phase One. Apparently Phase One never heard of the Streisand effect. ::)
-
Astroturf
:o Whao! So many people jumping in to defend Phase One. Apparently Phase One never heard of the Streisand effect. ::)
-
How do you practically do this on the fly? Seems like a very awkward solution. Why not use live view and focus manually, since I'm guessing you are already on a tripod to go into a submenu to change focus trimming for a lens?
Live view is great for architecture and static objects. I never use it when photographing people who move. It takes three to five seconds to set the focus trim. You don't have to do for every frame only if you change your set-up.
I apologize in advance for any blunt language. It you are locked off on a tripod, and the auto focus center is aimed at the breast area of a model, the area of crisp focus will be the on the chest. By using focus trim and adding a negative amount accordingly you can reduce the front focus and move the crisp, dead on area of sharpness to the models/subject's eyes.
I have attached a few iPhone snaps of the XF menu. It's not like digging for gold. You are simply pressing the silver bar twice and scrolling a dial on the camera near your thumb. I hope this helps.
(http://www.jefferysalter.com/files/ui_xf.jpg)
(http://www.jefferysalter.com/files/catsetup.jpg)
(http://www.jefferysalter.com/files/focus_trim.jpg)
-
Astroturf
Do we have enough real members to justify the effort? ::)
-
Doug, my Macs work out of the box. You want the customer to have a good C1 default experience? Give him a good C1 default experience.
Capture One works out of the box. Macs work out of the box.
Both require some customization for advanced users if they want to get the most out of it.
But given that we (DT) offer a free setup/training on Capture One with any purchase which leans heavily on customizing the UI and settings to that particular clients needs/style I think we are in fact doing as you suggest :).
-
We just saw C1 defaults bite you in that review.
Your customers get the most out of Phase One, hardware and software; And when they have an issue they call the expert (you) on the cellphone, and help is there. But mabye the rest of the world is not so lucky :)
Have you sent a mystery buyer to your colleagues?
Edmund
Capture One works out of the box. Macs work out of the box.
Both require some customization for advanced users if they want to get the most out of it.
But given that we (DT) offer a free setup/training on Capture One with any purchase which leans heavily on customizing the UI and settings to that particular clients needs/style I think we are in fact doing as you suggest :).
-
Doug, my Macs work out of the box. You want the customer to have a good C1 default experience? Give him a good C1 default experience.
Edmund
Good is subjective. Some people like crisp punchy grain and others like flat fuzzy detail. When you buy a Mac, it works but not always the way you want it to. That's why you've got system preferences.
-
I handled the XF100 for 15 minutes a few weeks back, enough for me to walk out early. Let me tell you why: it was yuuuuuge, and I've seen some yuuuge ones. I know people with H5, good people, and even compared to this big Swede it was yuuuuge. Not for people with hands on the small side, let me tell you.
-
Good is subjective. Some people like crisp punchy grain and others like flat fuzzy detail. When you buy a Mac, it works but not always the way you want it to. That's why you've got system preferences.
Yes, different people want different things. Which is why it is so hard to solve the "really good defaults" problem. Canon have Picture Styles as their solution. With video the defaults are even more critical as grading is time consumimg.
Edmund
-
Everyone is overlooking the biggest bit in the article:
"But, I will also say this, I only had one afternoon with the Phase One XF and the IQ350 back and I had five days to try out the Hasselblad H5D 50c WiFi before deciding to purchasing that system."
It takes a few days of use to really get comfortable with a system, you have to to shoot, look at files, shoot more, look at more files...
-Joe
I did not see that. Though the article is well written and informative, why waste your time writing such a detailed review with many negative or "con" type comments on the XF when you review it for 3-4 hours?!..REALLY! ??.... I'm dis-appointed in Michaels choice to review it this way. I own the XF and am still fine tuning my XF methodology. Not a fair review..PERIOD!
-
Live view is great for architecture and static objects. I never use it when photographing people who move. It takes three to five seconds to set the focus trim. You don't have to do for every frame only if you change your set-up.
I apologize in advance for any blunt language. It you are locked off on a tripod, and the auto focus center is aimed at the breast area of a model, the area of crisp focus will be the on the chest. By using focus trim and adding a negative amount accordingly you can reduce the front focus and move the crisp, dead on area of sharpness to the models/subject's eyes.
I have attached a few iPhone snaps of the XF menu. It's not like digging for gold. You are simply pressing the silver bar twice and scrolling a dial on the camera near your thumb. I hope this helps.
So, the procedure is as following:
1. Place the model in a proper position
2. Place your XF on a tripod, compose your shot
3. Ask the model to do a pose
4. Take a shot with autofocus on breast area
5. Go into the XF menu, do a focus trim
6. Take a shot and repeat 5 until focus is correct on the subjects face
7. Get the right expression
To me that sounds a bit cumbersome compared to Hasselblad's true focus to be honest.
-
So, the procedure is as following:
1. Place the model in a proper position
2. Place your XF on a tripod, compose your shot
3. Ask the model to do a pose
4. Take a shot with autofocus on breast area
5. Go into the XF menu, do a focus trim
6. Take a shot elop to land repeat 5 until focus is correct on the subjects face
7. Get the right expression
To me that sounds a bit cumbersome compared to Hasselblad's true focus to be honest.
It *is* interesting to see what workflows other people employ. I never enjoyed using a tripod for people shots, but I guess for most studio photographers in film days a tripod setup was often obligatory, and those who learnt then will carry that over to now.
Hasselblad's True Focus doesn't work on a tripod of course - which may be one reason why Phase saw no reason to implement something similar for their own base of tethered studio shooters, as Phase is now the tethered solution of choice.
Edmund
-
It *is* interesting to see what workflows other people employ. I never enjoyed using a tripod for people shots, but I guess for most studio photographers in film days a tripod setup was often obligatory, and those who learnt then will carry that over to now.
Hasselblad's True Focus doesn't work on a tripod of course - which may be one reason why Phase saw no reason to implement something similar for their own base of tethered studio shooters, as Phase is now the tethered solution of choice.
Edmund
I'm curious, why would Hasselblad's True Focus not work on a tripod? I've seen numerous examples, including an instruction video on youtube from Karl Taylor where he demonstrates True Focus - on a tripod.
-
So, the procedure is as following:
1. Place the model in a proper position
2. Place your XF on a tripod, compose your shot
3. Ask the model to do a pose
4. Take a shot with autofocus on breast area
5. Go into the XF menu, do a focus trim
6. Take a shot and repeat 5 until focus is correct on the subjects face
7. Get the right expression
To me that sounds a bit cumbersome compared to Hasselblad's true focus to be honest.
Hi Drake. It only sounds cumbersome. As I said mentioned earlier. This works well when you have the camera "locked" down on the tripod.
I suggest you meet up with a friend who owns the XF and simply give it a try. Words can only go so far.
Just to be clear, you only set the focus trim once. I don't know what type of photography that you do, but this technique works well for me because I shoot tethered and can see immediately what the image looks like.
This is one of many techniques to help a photographer get the picture he wants. When I'm not on a tripod, I simply focus and recompose then snap (even at f2.8 ) with excellent results. However other photographers may not be able to do this well.
I come from a photojournalism background where my camera of choice was the LIECA M4, M4P and M6. They are rangefinder cameras without any fancy focus assist aids. You bring the camera to your eye and recompose and snap. Great photography has been done since the advent of photography.
I hope this helps. Thank you.
-
It *is* interesting to see what workflows other people employ. I never enjoyed using a tripod for people shots, but I guess for most studio photographers in film days a tripod setup was often obligatory, and those who learnt then will carry that over to now.
Hasselblad's True Focus doesn't work on a tripod of course - which may be one reason why Phase saw no reason to implement something similar for their own base of tethered studio shooters, as Phase is now the tethered solution of choice.
Edmund
Hi,
What do you mean with that "true focus does not work on a tripod?"
It does, as far as I can tell, in fact that warranty that the distance from the subject will not change.
Hasselblad even recommend to test Truefocus on a tripod before sending it for repair (TF needs training, to keep the distance equal):
http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/using-true-focus.pdf
Could you elaborate ?
Best regards,
-
Hi,
What do you mean with that "true focus does not work on a tripod?"
It does, as far as I can tell, in fact that warranty that the distance from the subject will not change.
Hasselblad even recommend to test Truefocus on a tripod before sending it for repair (TF needs training, to keep the distance equal):
http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/02/using-true-focus.pdf
Could you elaborate ?
Best regards,
Apologies. I meant it is much less useful on a tripod because in model shooting usually one doesn't rotate the camera around a lot once one has the tripod set up. Maybe I'm wrong about that - *I* don't move the camera on tripod a lot when I use a tripod.
Edmund
-
Jeffrey -
I will update the article on the flash sync speeds with the new blue line lenses - looks like the rep told me some bad info. Thank you for that info.
On the focusing, I will also update the article with your feed back. There are still a lot of folks that seem to have had issues but I will note that some find the AF to be excellent.
Michael is an accomplished action/adventure photographer. However his review of the XF350 is inaccurate. I would suggest partnering up with a photographer who shoots with the XF system on a regular basis. Not sure how helpful to make assertions when you have limited experience with a camera system. I would gladly rent an IQ350 and meet Michael to do some photography. He could give me some pointers of the actual use of Hasselblad system. I have only shoot with the H1/H2 and not the latest models.
Upon a quick reading of Michael’s blog I noticed several statements which are not factual.
The article asserts that the Auto-focus on the XF is poor. This is not true.
The article makes some incorrect remarks about LS glass and flash syncing.
His opinions about the Reliability based upon “Almost everyone has to send in their XF for service” are disingenuous and could greatly benefit from fact checking.
AUTO FOCUS
I have shot over 10,000 frames with my XF and have a very high percentage of sharp images. Recently I shot three magazine covers for a national sports magazine. The photo editors were very happy with the take. No problems with focus on the XF.
This is how I do it.
In my long term experience in photography I have found that the majority of the time when a photographer has a lot of out of focus images it's due to operator issues and poor camera technique. Here’s just a few examples.
1. Out of focus VS camera shake/motion Blur. It's vital to remember when handholding any camera to use at twice the focus length of the lens as a shutter speed. This is especially true when shooting on a MFD camera.
2. Diopter adjustment. On the view finder of the XF is a Diopter adjustment. A) Focus on an object. B) While looking through the viewfinder - turn the dial until the image is crisp.
3. Holding the camera. The elbows should be in. One hand cups underneath the lens while the other hand holds the camera. When you place your (non-shutter) hand over the lens it's easy to actually push the lens down a bit while shooting causing a bit of motion blur.
4. Focus assist light. Go into the menu of the XF and you can adjust the brightness to help the camera/lens snap into focus.
5. Focus trim. Is not only for dialing in the sweet spot of a lens. The most important use of focus trimming is when your camera in lock into place and you chose not to focus and recompose. For example when shooting a vertical magazine cover featuring three quarter photograph of a woman wearing a swimsuit. You can focus on her midriff area and simply apply a minus/negative amount of focus trim. This reduces the focus and brings the focus the eyes.
This also comes into play when you have a background that is extremely contrasty or backlighted and the auto focus has the tendency to back focus leaving the foreground subject blurry, simple dial in a positive amount of focus trim. It’s pretty straightforward to use.
SCHNEIDER KREUZNACH 35mm LS f/3.5
Yes it does sync at 1/1600 of a second. I own this lens. The strobe system I use is Profoto combined with the Profoto Air Sync remote.
I also shoot with an LS 28, LS 55, LS 110, LS150 and they all sync at 1/1600 of second with Profoto Air Sync remote on the Profoto packs.
The LS 40-80 Zoom syncs at about 1/800 to 1/1000 with Profoto air sync.
RELIABILITY
(In the blog it says everyone who has a Phase One system has to send it in for repair?)
This is not true.
I don’t climb mountains or jump out of planes. Just do advertising and editorial photography. My Phase digital back has about XX,XXX frames on it. I’m a bit shy to say how many…..it has never been to Denmark for service. My XF has as mentioned about 10,000 on the shutter. Never been in for service. My Phase One system lives in a Gura Gear backpack (the 34L) I wish I could say that I wrap my gear in bubble wrap, most readers of the forum would say Jeff please please put a little protection around your gear……
Here is a picture of my XF frame counter.
(http://www.jefferysalter.com/files/xf_frame_counter.jpg)
-
Don't know what the difference between the two systems is, nor I think that any difference between them is significant for one to decide (no matter how many try to convince people that there is an important difference...) between the two. My two cents go with the price difference between the two systems and it does so (I believe) with the rest of the population in this planet... Heck..., even if they where at close price the Hasselblad system is much more recognisable as it carries a "name history" that P1 will never achieve...
-
Jeffrey -
I will update the article on the flash sync speeds with the new blue line lenses - looks like the rep told me some bad info. Thank you for that info.
On the focusing, I will also update the article with your feed back. There are still a lot of folks that seem to have had issues but I will note that some find the AF to be excellent.
Thank you Michael
I really appreciate your response. Just to be clear my comments pertain to your "review". Your photography is outstanding. I looking forward to seeing how your style changes with the new Hassy and what new images you create.
Jeffery
-
Jeffrey -
You are welcome. Thank you for the feedback. I will update that review right now. If I had had a better experience with the Phase One I probably would own one of those right now instead of a Hassey. I tried to make the review as honest and unbiased as possible and I gave Hasselblad some huge digs as well in that review.
Thank you Michael
I really appreciate your response. Just to be clear my comments are pertain to your "review". Your photography is outstanding. I looking forward to seeing how your style changes with the new Hassy and what new images you create.
Jeffery
-
Apologies. I meant it is much less useful on a tripod because in model shooting usually one doesn't rotate the camera around a lot once one has the tripod set up. Maybe I'm wrong about that - *I* don't move the camera on tripod a lot when I use a tripod.
Edmund
I use True Focus on the tripod *all* the time. Works really well.
-
Michael,
I worked for 20 years as a journo, writing both in french and in english. I used to be paid as a columnist to do pro photo stuff reviews for Ziff Davis. I am a National Union of Journalists member. That doesn't mean I know everything about photography, but I do know what counts as a review.
By modern web standards, your review is a review. It is not a "review" as some here contend. You didn't read a press release, you looked at the products, tried them out, and gave your personal opinion.
There is no reason you should feel obligated to update *your* review with anyone else's later input. If you elect to do so, it is correct and conventional to add such material in a box, distinctively separated from the original text, with a clear indication that the new material is an addendum, and does not reflect your own observations.
When you write, the aggregate quality of your own opinions and writing form your own brand. I once had an email exchange about some fractal compression software with Michael Reichmann, the original founder of this site. He said it was pretty much useless, I'd used it, and thought it was pretty useful for enlarging box shots with printed lettering and the like. As I remember, he replied "I don't do box shots, I'm a landscape photographer". Even though I can be quite argumentative :), I shut up — he was right. His working style, his observations, his opinion, his review.
Edmund
Jeffrey -
I will update the article on the flash sync speeds with the new blue line lenses - looks like the rep told me some bad info. Thank you for that info.
On the focusing, I will also update the article with your feed back. There are still a lot of folks that seem to have had issues but I will note that some find the AF to be excellent.
-
Michael,
There is no reason you should feel obligated to update *your* review with anyone else's later input. If you elect to do so, it is correct and conventional to add such material in a box, distinctively separated from the original text, with a clear indication that the new material is an addendum, and does not reflect your own observations.
Edmund
Me and Michael just had an honest and open exchange of good energy. But for some dark reason you choose to see things in a negative point of view. That's really sad. When I put "review" in quotes I meant it to only as a reference that I was not questioning his art. In a sense I gave my review of his review. He's a hardworking photographer trying to make a living in a world that doesn't value "print" as much as it should we are both as are many of our colleagues swimming against the same tide. The last Hasselblad equipment I owned was the H1/H2 platform. I don't have the experience with the latest Hassy offerings so therefore I would never feel qualified to write a review based upon a one day test. My approach would have been to call a notable Hassy user and ask them to shoot alongside me with my PHASE ONE system. Michael choose a different path.
Now regarding your simply rude and uncalled for introjection....
As my fifth grade daughter would say. This is an "A" "B" conversation so kindly "C" yourself out of it.
Thank you.
-
Michael,
I worked for 20 years as a journo, writing both in french and in english. I used to be paid as a columnist to do pro photo stuff reviews for Ziff Davis. I am a National Union of Journalists member. That doesn't mean I know everything about photography, but I do know what counts as a review.
By modern web standards, your review is a review. It is not a "review" as some here contend. You didn't read a press release, you looked at the products, tried them out, and gave your personal opinion.
There is no reason you should feel obligated to update *your* review with anyone else's later input. If you elect to do so, it is correct and conventional to add such material in a box, distinctively separated from the original text, with a clear indication that the new material is an addendum, and does not reflect your own observations.
When you write, the aggregate quality of your own opinions and writing form your own brand. I once had an email exchange about some fractal compression software with Michael Reichmann, the original founder of this site. He said it was pretty much useless, I'd used it, and thought it was pretty useful for enlarging box shots with printed lettering and the like. As I remember, he replied "I don't do box shots, I'm a landscape photographer". Even though I can be quite argumentative :), I shut up — he was right. His working style, his observations, his opinion, his review.
Edmund
Edmund,
I agree it's a read, a review...HMMM probably not. A review is a summation of opinions and facts based on real like findings and testing. A review that is meant to be a comparison review is all the above, comparing all the different facets of each item and being reviewed on an even playing field. Do you really, REALLY think that 4 hours behind an XF is going to provide ample and accurate findings on a camera of this sort??..then to compare with a body that you've tested for what...4-5 days?? C'mon really? That would be like taking a Ferrari around the block for a review or even worse a comparison.,,,FWIW....Cheers
-
Edmund,
I agree it's a read, a review...HMMM probably not. A review is a summation of opinions and facts based on real like findings and testing. A review that is meant to be a comparison review is all the above, comparing all the different facets of each item and being reviewed on an even playing field. Do you really, REALLY think that 4 hours behind an XF is going to provide ample and accurate findings on a camera of this sort??..then to compare with a body that you've tested for what...4-5 days?? C'mon really? That would be like taking a Ferrari around the block for a review or even worse a comparison.,,,FWIW....Cheers
I myself tested the H5D-50c against the XF a couple of months ago. As it happens I was also in a similar situation where I had the H5 for about 2 weeks and the XF for 24 hours. However the interesting thing was that in the 2 weeks that I had the H5 I must have in total used it for say 5 hours, the rest of the time it sat. When i got hold of the XF I pretty much tested it non stop for probably the same time. So I disagree with aztwang that one can make a good assessment of a camera's abilities even by having it for several hours. End of the day if the camera can do what you want it to then all good, If it fails to, then there is no reason to look for excuses :p (and I mean excuses in the politest manner)
Regards
-
Edmund,
I agree it's a read, a review...HMMM probably not. A review is a summation of opinions and facts based on real like findings and testing. A review that is meant to be a comparison review is all the above, comparing all the different facets of each item and being reviewed on an even playing field. Do you really, REALLY think that 4 hours behind an XF is going to provide ample and accurate findings on a camera of this sort??..then to compare with a body that you've tested for what...4-5 days?? C'mon really? That would be like taking a Ferrari around the block for a review or even worse a comparison.,,,FWIW....Cheers
Here is what Michael says about XF focus, and it explains why some people here are going postal, and also explains why he bought a Hassy:
"When I tested out the Phase One XF, I got only 7 images out 200 in focus using that camera’s Honeybee autofocus system. It wasn’t as if all of those 193 other images were way out of focus, but they weren’t critically sharp where I intended for the focus to be."
Yes, journalists take a Ferrari on a test drive for a few hours and get paid to post their impressions.
I wrote a lot of paid reviews of computer equipment that was in my hands for only a few hours -during which I often ripped it to pieces, photographed it and reassembled- and the editors who paid me were always almost always happy with the content, provided the copy was turned in on time.
You may hold the opinion that Michael's text does not convey all the facts as you would see them after a prolonged and expert inspection of the equipment, but it is still a review.
And btw, I think Michael was looking for a camera, he approached the sales organisations of both companies like any buyer, and was given the standard treatment - why should he base his published opinions on anything more? At least he has $20K worth of skin in the game, which is more than most people who publish stuff in magazines .. or web sites.
Edmund
-
Good point, ER. There's no reason to correct errors in a published review.
It's so much more fun to be a fucking troll.
-
Good point, ER. There's no reason to correct errors in a published review.
It's so much more fun to be a fucking troll.
Nobody is stopping you from listing his "errors". Let's see: I wanted to buy a Ferrari, the dealer lent me one for a couple of days, next day it wouldn't start". That's not an error, that's an unhappy —and probably unusual— experience. Someone gets that, no wonder they choose Lambo instead :)
And yes, thank you, at my age (60) each new copulatory event is a rare and unexpected miracle, I certainly hope I won't turn into a normal troll too soon :)
Edmund
-
There are people who use the XF and love it. Is it the perfect camera? I don't think so. Is it great? Yes. Is it the camera for me? Nope.
Then there are the people who use the Hasselblad's and love them. Are they the perfect camera? Nope. Is the Hasselblad great? Yes. Is it the camera for me? Yes
So each of us is entitled to his/her own opinion. At least the reviewer took his time and did a good comparison that at I happen to agree with.
If you disagree feel free to make corrections. No need to bring in the 'F' words into the conversation.
My 2 cents
-
Maxshafiq
I think we're now seeing the dead cat strategy at work - some people are trying to get the thread to implode. It's going to be all about everything -the reviewer, the corrections, the cursewords - except the XF and the H5D.
Edmund
In 2013, Johnson wrote a piece in the Telegraph about campaign tactics he learned from his “Australian friend”—Crosby. It’s worth reading the entire excerpt here: “Let us suppose you are losing an argument. The facts are overwhelmingly against you, and, the more people focus on the reality, the worse it is for you and your case. Your best bet in these circumstances is to perform a manoeuvre that a great campaigner describes as ‘throwing a dead cat on the table, mate.’
That is because there is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table—and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’; in other words, they will be talking about the dead cat, the thing you want them to talk about, and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/dead-cats-and-the-niqab/
Edmund
There are people who use the XF and love it. Is it the perfect camera? I don't think so. Is it great? Yes. Is it the camera for me? Nope.
Then there are the people who use the Hasselblad's and love them. Are they the perfect camera? Nope. Is the Hasselblad great? Yes. Is it the camera for me? Yes
So each of us is entitled to his/her own opinion. At least the reviewer took his time and did a good comparison that at I happen to agree with.
If you disagree feel free to make corrections. No need to bring in the 'F' words into the conversation.
My 2 cents
-
Edmund - got to hand it to you, you have your analogies taken care of!
LMAO
-
Eronald, you do write some utter nonsense at times!
Bottom line with "reviews" like this is to be accurate and factual, how you interpret use and your own final decisions are unarguable, they relate directly to the individual, but if someone is going to write these things, the minimum the writer should aim for is accuracy in my opinion.
Being accurate does nothing detrimental to the final choice, it doesn't show the Hasselblad in a lesser light, it just shows integrity from the writer and ultimately lends weight to his final choice. The information about the XF isn't wrong because of his opinion, it's just plain wrong!
As he "tested" the XF with a representative, why did he not just say, I want to control these functions without taking my eye from the screen, to which the rep should have been able to say, no problem, give me 2 mins to set it all up. The fact is that ISO, aperture, shutter speed all have their own controls, all operable by the right hand holding the camera. Assigning mirror up to any button is possible, having it by the grip means it too is operable without moving your eye. He states that the mirror needs locking up for each shot with the XF and not with the 'blad, that's just wrong, hit the mirror up and it stays up until you press it again to bring it down.
AF performance is very good in my experience but that's not to say that others don't find it so, but 7 shots out of 200?! Who would sell a camera that performed like that? I certainly wouldn't buy it. Setting up a lens with focus trim takes very little time and once done, the camera remembers the setting for that lens so you never need to worry about it again. Focus and recompose, I do this all the time with all my cameras set to centre point, if you lose focus when you recompose, it's not the cameras fault, it just means you have to practice your technique more, it is focussing where you set it, if you move forward or back whilst swinging the camera then you need to practice that to get better.
Ultimately, it takes very little effort to present the facts, then present your choice and the reasons why it suits you, if you don't have enough time with the camera to form a decent opinion then why bother writing the review at all? Reading this is disappointing, the chap is obviously a good photographer, it may be best to stick with that!
Mat
-
Mjrichardson
You don't like the review - good for you. There is a lot to like and dislike here.
Now as you are hard intent on facts, I suggest you go back to your highschool geometry book where there is probably an erudite notation that as a consequence of the Pythagorean theorem, the hypothenuse of a right triangle is longer than either of the other sides. Yes, in a right triangle the long side is longer than any of the shorter sides :).
This comes from the fact that in highschool the geometry is flat or euclidean, and distances are sums of squares so the square of the hypothenuse as the sum of the squares of the sides is larger than any of the squares of the sides. This reasoning is actually wrong in real-world spacetime physics but probably good enough an approximation for a photographer, and the reasonable and uncomplicated majority of humanity. :)
Swing the camera to one side for focus, or up to the eyes, and you are measuring a long leg, swing it back straight ahead and the end of that long leg is now somewhere behind your subject. Maybe only by a few inches. That is the problem with focus and recompose, there is no way around the fact that the measurement is bad *with any focus system, even a laser rangefinder* because you are measuring the wrong distance.
Hasselblad solved this factual issue by recalculating a distance correction according to how far you move the camera. Nikon and Canon just drop an off-center focus point and estimate accurate focus without moving the camera. Phase has neither of its competitor's features enabled for now, and so focus and recompose introduces an error - which may be slight, depending on the distance, aperture, and focus length involved.
Some people can live with the error, others stop down the lens, others have some procedural trick for correcting for the error; the reviewer apparently prefers a camera which compensates for this error.
Instead of wasting more of your time on my nonsense and embarassing yourself even more in public, I suggest you go get your camera, try an experiment with a wide-open fast lens and a couple of marks on a whiteboard.
And you know what? I agree with many of your remarks re this review, But any reader has issues with any review, they're all subjective.
Edmund
Eronald, you do write some utter nonsense at times!
Focus and recompose, I do this all the time with all my cameras set to centre point, if you lose focus when you recompose, it's not the cameras fault, it just means you have to practice your technique more, it is focussing where you set it, if you move forward or back whilst swinging the camera then you need to practice that to get better.
Ultimately, it takes very little effort to present the facts, then present your choice and the reasons why it suits you, if you don't have enough time with the camera to form a decent opinion then why bother writing the review at all? Reading this is disappointing, the chap is obviously a good photographer, it may be best to stick with that!
Mat
-
Urgh, at what point does anyone, lets say handholding a camera, move exactly when swinging the camera, I would suggest that you may move back and forwards a little just standing still without even holding a camera! The process of focussing with a single centre point and moving yourself correctly to maintain focus is not rocket science and doesn't need pythagorus to explain it, it's about knowing how to move, knowing your equipment and practice, nothing more, people have been doing it for years. I make a living shooting business portraits wide open with a single focus point camera, not once have I had to measure the distance, even the wrong one.
Maybe this is down to people relying more and more on the technology in their cameras rather than actually developing any skill.
We do agree on one thing though, your nonsense is a waste of my time.
Have a nice afternoon!
Mat
I should add that I have absolutely no issue with the review from the subjective side, the reasons he chose the Hasselblad are of no consequence to me, his preference is his own, I only take issue with the nonsubjective stuff, the things that are just wrong.
-
Maybe this is down to people relying more and more on the technology in their cameras rather than actually developing any skill.
Mat
Yes. And I think the automation is taking the fun out of the game.
Edmund
-
Thank you Edmund. I appreciate that.
I have a feeling that later tonight my review is going to become irrelevant anyway with the announcement that Hasselblad is going to announce.
Cheers, Michael
Michael,
I worked for 20 years as a journo, writing both in french and in english. I used to be paid as a columnist to do pro photo stuff reviews for Ziff Davis. I am a National Union of Journalists member. That doesn't mean I know everything about photography, but I do know what counts as a review.
By modern web standards, your review is a review. It is not a "review" as some here contend. You didn't read a press release, you looked at the products, tried them out, and gave your personal opinion.
There is no reason you should feel obligated to update *your* review with anyone else's later input. If you elect to do so, it is correct and conventional to add such material in a box, distinctively separated from the original text, with a clear indication that the new material is an addendum, and does not reflect your own observations.
When you write, the aggregate quality of your own opinions and writing form your own brand. I once had an email exchange about some fractal compression software with Michael Reichmann, the original founder of this site. He said it was pretty much useless, I'd used it, and thought it was pretty useful for enlarging box shots with printed lettering and the like. As I remember, he replied "I don't do box shots, I'm a landscape photographer". Even though I can be quite argumentative :), I shut up — he was right. His working style, his observations, his opinion, his review.
Edmund
-
I just want the comparison to be as accurate as possible. In the post I asked for feedback on several things as I didn't have time to figure everything out. Heck, I am still figuring out stuff on my Hasselblad H5D a few months after I got it. Thanks again for the feedback everyone. I have updated the review.
Tonight, we will find out what Hasselblad announces and that will, hopefully, be very exciting.
Cheers, Michael
Me and Michael just had an honest and open exchange of good energy. But for some dark reason you choose to see things in a negative point of view. That's really sad. When I put "review" in quotes I meant it to only as a reference that I was not questioning his art. In a sense I gave my review of his review. He's a hardworking photographer trying to make a living in a world that doesn't value "print" as much as it should we are both as are many of our colleagues swimming against the same tide. The last Hasselblad equipment I owned was the H1/H2 platform. I don't have the experience with the latest Hassy offerings so therefore I would never feel qualified to write a review based upon a one day test. My approach would have been to call a notable Hassy user and ask them to shoot alongside me with my PHASE ONE system. Michael choose a different path.
Now regarding your simply rude and uncalled for introjection....
As my fifth grade daughter would say. This is an "A" "B" conversation so kindly "C" yourself out of it.
Thank you.
-
I'm waiting for Doug's post concerning new firmware that speeds up the blinkenlight of the self-timer on the XF - and incidentally adds some minor fixes to AF.
Edmund
Thank you Edmund. I appreciate that.
I have a feeling that later tonight my review is going to become irrelevant anyway with the announcement that Hasselblad is going to announce.
Cheers, Michael
-
In this thread and in the original article there was some confusion over sync speeds of the Schneider / Team Phase One LS lenses.
For absolute clarity:
- the 240LS syncs at 1/1,000
- ALL other Schneider LS lenses sync at 1/1,600
Your flash transmitter needs to be capable of communicating at 1/1600th if you want to go that fast.
- An example of a transmitter not capable of this is the standard PocketWizard which can only fully sync up to 1/500th.
- An example of a transmitter capable of this is a Profoto Air transmitter.
Notably a Profoto Air transmitter is built into the Phase One XF. That allows you to trigger (at up to 1/1600th) any Profoto Air light without any separate transmitters/receivers/cables/batteries or with any other kind of light (e.g. Broncolor) by attaching a Profoto Air receiver to it. You, of course, can also put any transmitter (e.g. a Broncolor RFS) you want on the XF.
We have the full tech specs of all Schneider LS lenses (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-leaf-shutter-lenses/) on our website.