Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: william on April 26, 2016, 03:17:43 pm
-
(Note first that these early impressions don't contain any substantive comment upon the image quality of the 100 mpx back: it's far too early for me to have real impressions of image quality, noise, sharpness, etc. All looks quite good on that front at first glance)
I received the XF-100 and a few lenses last week. Initial impressions:
(1) It looks and feels like a modernized Contax 645. I love the Contax, so for me, this is a good thing.
(2) Build quality is excellent, with a few minor exceptions. It's 99% good news: the body/back feel crafted from a solid hunk of metal, there's no play/looseness in any of the parts, the metal lens hoods are welcome (the plastic hoods with the Leica S lenses are one of my pet peeves), the lenses all feel solid and fall nicely to hand. The build quality exceptions I've noticed thus far are:
(a) the body's battery cover door feels flimsy/like it would break off if you set the camera down with the battery cover unintentionally left open (that may or may not be true: I'm just saying it feels that way because the hing feels pretty loose and fairly thin). I think I've gotten spoiled by the integral latch mechanism of the Leica S.
(b) My batteries are getting stuck in the body. (I'm working with my dealer and Phase on this: it's either that my body or my batteries are slightly out of spec/either the body cavity is slightly too small or the batteries are slightly too large).
(3) Viewfinder: Quite good, but not the very best eye-level viewfinder I've ever used: that distinction belongs to the Leica S. The XF viewfinder is slightly (just slightly) dimmer to my eye than the Leica S, and it's magnification appears to be slightly less (i.e., there's a slight but noticeable tunnel effect such that when looking through the viewfinder, objects appear slightly smaller than they are in real life, whereas the Leica viewfinder is (or at least appears to my eye to be) much more of a 1-to-1 magnification.
(4) Waist-level finder: Works great, all metal. The focusing aid on the handgrip when you switch the layout to "waist-level" is helpful, but I doubt I'll use it much. I'll either rely on the ground glass, the optical pop-up magnifier, or the AF confirm beep.
(5) Autofocus: fairly snappy for a medium format camera. It's at least as fast as the Leica S. Initial impression is that it's marginally better at achieving focus lock more quickly than the Leica S. In terms of accuracy (hitting focus where I intend), it's been reasonably good but not perfect. I am not at all yet sure how much of that is user error: I very much still need to become more adept at how to get the focus point to land optimally and how/when to use the wider AF point versus the smaller spot AF point. I also still need to calibrate all the lenses. All that said, I'd say I'm at 80-90% AF accuracy, depending on lighting conditions. As to manual focus, I do have one complaint, which is that the lenses (unlike the Leica S) do not have full time manual focus override: you have to physically flip the switch from AF to MF.
(6) Start-up time: Not good. I did a count -- not scientific, just "one Mississippi, two Mississippi..." -- last night of how long it took from "power button press" to "ready to shoot", and I got to 7 Mississippis (7 seconds). THat's just way too long. It's about twice as long as my Leica S (which is itself a lot longer than my Nikon D800, which is nearly instantaneous). I assume the long start up time is due in part to the automatic "disk check" and I'm sure I can turn that off (I recall seeing references to it in the manual). But there appears to be something else happening on startup that's eating up precious seconds, something relating to a flashing battery and lens symbol in the viewfinder/on the top handgrip. Again, I haven't read the manual in enough detail to know everything that's happening upon startup and how I can mitigate it, but whatever it is:ready to shoot time from from power off is too slow. As I recall, it is very slightly faster from sleep to ready to shoot, but not much. Phase should work on this.
(7) User interface: Brilliant. Let me explain, though:
One can access a multitude of settings from the back (touch screen or hard keys), the grip (two hard keys and dials) or the touch screen on the top of the grip. For me personally, there's way too much going on via the menu on the back (whether via touch or hard keys). I suppose this may be ameliorated over time as I use it more/dive into the users' manual, so I'll know intellectually and intuitively what settings are where. As a new user though, I just basically randomly push buttons/icons until I get where I want to be. Too complicated. Accessing the settings via the two hard keys on the grip and the wheels and dials is also too fiddly: everything's there, but I have to think about it too much.
The part that's brilliant is having all of your shooting settings accessible via (1) the dials and (2) the touch screen on the top of the grip. ISO, aperture, and shutter speed are all changeable via the three dials that fall to forefinger and thumb, which is great. Everything else you'd use for shooting -- mirror up, drive mode (single, continuous, self-timer, vibration delay, etc), AF mode, exposure comp, metering mode, battery and card status -- are all accessible via a single touch on the relevant icon on the top touch screen. It's hard to explain verbally how intuitive that is for a shooter, but having used it, it's hard to imagine not having it but instead having to dive through the menus on the rear of a camera's screen. Having them there in the position you'd normally be looking at a camera while shooting (i.e., looking down from the top rather than rotating the camera (if hand held) or crouching down (if on a tripod) to see the rear screen) is fabulous.
(Eight) (I had to write out the word eight because the hypertext on this site kept changing the number to a smiley-face with sunglasses! 8) Ergonomics: excellent. Everything falls naturally to hand, and the shape of the handgrip combined with the rubbery/non-slip covering made it very easy to handhold. This thing is heavy, though! Even with the 80mm or 110mmm attached, both of which are pretty small lenses by medium format standards. I still think Phase should make a vertical grip, but not solely for ergonomic reasons: surprisingly, at least to me, it's very comfortable to hold vertically without a vertical grip (because the left side of the body, which is the side that rests in your left hand when shooting vertically, is flat, meaning you take the vast majority of the weight in your cupped left hand rather than trying to support it via the grip in your right hand). The reason I think Phase should make a vertical grip is because it'll marginally improve ergonomics during long sessions, but also that there's currently no way to separate the AF function of the secondary shutter release (on the front of the body) from the shutter activation function. When held horizontally, I have AF on the thumb button and shutter release only on the shutter release button. The secondary shutter button can't be configured that way. A vertical grip with two buttons (thumb and forefinger) would solve this. Just updating the firmware to allow the secondary shutter release to be configured for shutter release only wouldn't fully solve this, because when held vertically in a way that allows your forefinger to touch the secondary shutter release, your thumb can't reach the thumb button on the body.
(9) Live view: Didn't use it yet. I'm not really a live view shooter, but I suppose I'll check it out eventually.
(10) Bugs/issues: I noticed a few:
(a) Sometimes when initiating image playback, I would get a "no files found" message. It would eventually after a few seconds play the images, so I assume this is just an error due to the fact that it takes a few seconds for them to "load" for review. But still, it freaked me out....
(b) The image review zoom function is useful, but it should be a "spread two fingers to zoom/pinch to contract" rather than a "use your finger to move the zoom slider" functionality. After using iPads and iPhones for so many years, the former is much more intuitive (as it is for millions of people)
(c) The operation of attaching the prism finder or waist-level finder is needlessly fiddly. You have to insert the finder at a very specific angle with the parts clicking down in a very specific order to get it to latch properly. if you're off even slightly, it won't latch at all or will latch on one side (usually the right) but not the other and get stuck on the latched side.
(d) As I mentioned above, they should redesign the XF body's battery door. The one on the back feels sturdier.
(e) Big one: there should be a way to lock a single exposure variable (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, exposure comp.) so that they're not unintentionally changed if you accidentally jostle a dial or touch the setting on one of the touch screens. As it is (at least as far as I can tell after only a couple of days with it and having not exhaustively read the manual), you can lock all of the wheels and settings, but you can't lock just one (such as ISO). There should be a functionality where you click on the relevant variable (say, aperture) on the top touch screen and it brings up an option to lock just that variable. This seems like an easy one to fix with a firmware update.
(f) The design of the strap insert slots is insane. It literally took me longer to get the straps in the slots (like 20 minutes) than it did to figure out how to set up the basic settings and start shooting. It's hard to explain unless you've seen the camera, but (presumably to maintain the sleek lines) the strap insert slots are flush against the body: Getting the strap through the top slot and out the bottom slot required a bent paperclip and a lot of patience to slowly nudge it through a millimeter at a time. (I realize that others have found solutions that seem to work better -- http://www.ironcreekphotographyblog.com/2015/09/phase-one-xf-peak-design-strap.html -- but really, Phase should redesign the strap insertion points. Or, even better, include a strap that inserts more easily (and of higher quality than the included strap). Granted, once you have the strap inserted, it's done; but still, what about when (not if) I want to change straps? I don't look forward to going through that process again.
If anyone has specific questions, happy to try to answer. At some point, I'll do a substantive image quality review and comparisons with the Leica S 007.
-
Re start up time: a smaller card will check-disk faster and therefore be ready to shoot faster. The difference between, for example, a 16gb card and a 128gb card can be several seconds.
-
Hello William:
thanks for the info.
A few thoughts.
The best card I have found on the Phase backs is the Lexar 1066x UDMA 7 cards in the 64GB size. They load a bit faster on start up, and during playback seem much faster to me.
On the zoom, I always just double tap the screen to zoom to 100%, as to me the 100% view is the best for preview. Once at 100%, you can move around the image like on a iPad with your finger. Here again the Lexar card seems to speed this up.
Not sure on the battery issue unless they are not Phase branded batteries. Some of the clones for the Canon batter that Phase uses can get a bit hot and expand, which will cause them to stick until they have cooled a bit. Hope your dealer works that out quick. The latest Phase batteries will be the 3400 Milliamp cells.
I agree start up is slow, always has been with Phase One. It's an eternity when compared to a Nikon or Canon DSLR. Can't speak to Hasselblad or Leica.
7 seconds is about right even with the Lexar card I referred to earlier.
Paul C
-
Paul and Lance,
Thanks for the comments. I'm using the 64Gb Sandisk counterpart of the Lexar cards Paul mentions.
Whether Sandisk or Lexar, I'd be reluctant to use a 16Gb card on a real shoot: by my math, that would fill up in around 160 full-res shots, which is more card-switching than I'd want to do on a real shoot (and the XF only has a single card slot).
-
For what it's worth, the camera will start up quicker by using the back's button rather than the XF's button.
I've been using the XF for about 9 months and the IQ3 100 for nearly three months and have zero complaints except for the release button for the prism VF. It's too easily moved accidentally.
-
...
(e) Big one: there should be a way to lock a single exposure variable (ISO, shutter speed, aperture, exposure comp.) so that they're not unintentionally changed if you accidentally jostle a dial or touch the setting on one of the touch screens. As it is (at least as far as I can tell after only a couple of days with it and having not exhaustively read the manual), you can lock all of the wheels and settings, but you can't lock just one (such as ISO). There should be a functionality where you click on the relevant variable (say, aperture) on the top touch screen and it brings up an option to lock just that variable. This seems like an easy one to fix with a firmware update.
William, thanks for the clear written impression of the XF...
If you shoot at 100MP i cannot imagine that you do not use liveview... AF is good but not perfect and you need that to get 100MP sharpness i guess (?)
A 7 second startup time seems really odd in 2016 (?) Even the first digital Nikon had a startup time of less than 1 second....
-
I have no experience with the Phase one, but even on a Nikon d810 it is not possible to lock some basic things like the file format.
Just today i made a mistake ; i found out after shooting that i had shot some part in small jpeg while wanting to shoot Raw...
If you live from photography these things may not happen...
-
To each his own, I suppose, but I detest the "viewing the world through a TV screen" experience of live view. Oh, I'll use it when I need it, but only when I *need* it.
As to being able to lock a variable: when cameras (at least good ones) had all analog controls, accidentally changing an important exposure variable was far less of a problem. Either the variable actually locked (like the shutter speed dial on a Nikon F3, as I recall, or the ISO dial on the top left of various Nikons) or it was hard to accidentally knock out of place because it had firm click detents such that you generally had to apply some intentional pressure to change it (like the shutter speed dial on my film Leica MP). The only variable I would ever accidentally change more than once in a blue moon was the aperture ring on the lens, but after so many years of shooting, I got in the habit of looking at the aperture ring each and every time I picked up the camera or put it back to my eye.
With wheels and dials - and especially with touch screens - it's far different. As to the wheels and dials, they neither have locking positions nor firm detents: they wheel about freely at a light touch. And with a touch screen, there's no tactile feedback whatsoever to indicate that you've changed something.
In any event: since Phase can and has provided the functionality to lock *all* of the exposure variables, I think they can and should provide the ability to lock them individually rather than all or nothing. Just touch the relevant variable on the top touch screen; it brings up the same "lock" dialogue that currently can be brought up for all the variables; then push "lock" and that variable alone is locked.
William, thanks for the clear written impression of the XF...
If you shoot at 100MP i cannot imagine that you do not use liveview... AF is good but not perfect and you need that to get 100MP sharpness i guess (?)
A 7 second startup time seems really odd in 2016 (?) Even the first digital Nikon had a startup time of less than 1 second....
-
I have no experience with the Phase one, but even on a Nikon d810 it is not possible to lock some basic things like the file format.
Just today i made a mistake ; i found out after shooting that i had shot some part in small jpeg while wanting to shoot Raw...
If you live from photography these things may not happen...
-
Updates:
Autofocus: Having played around with it more, I'm now at like 90-95% AF accuracy. I'm also convinced that it is noticeably good at focus accuracy for a medium format camera. Very little hunting whatsoever except in the dimmest conditions, and AF lands where I put it (I don't always put it in the right place, of course, but that's user error).
Stuck battery issue: Dealer (Digital Transitions) is handling it expeditiously.
Image quality:
My initial impressions are that it's very good (not surprisingly). I still haven't shot enough to have rigorous impressions, of course, but:
(a) I'm really liking the colors, especially skin tones. It's hard to know how much of this is the back itself versus how the files are cooked in C1, but whatever the case, I'm liking the color rendering thus far.
(b) Auto white balance is surprisingly accurate.
(c) Resolution/sharpness is outstanding (no surprise: it's 100 freaking megapixels).
(d) At this point, I still prefer the Leica S lenses rendering of people/portraits in natural light. Don't get me wrong, both systems' lenses are very very impressive in both artificial (flash) and natural light, but shooting some natural lights samples with the XF100 and 110mm 2.8 Schneider versus with the Leica S 007 and 100mm 2.0 Leica lens, I prefer the rendering of the Leica. Not surprising: that lens is just extraordinary. Any chance of a Leica S to XF adapter? I'm well aware that the Leica lenses are designed for a smaller sensor and that there would be cropping/vignetting if mounted on a larger sensor body. With 100mpx, that doesn't really matter much.
Using flash, they both look equally good (which is very good indeed).
(And I'll reiterate my plea for Phase One to formally support the Leica S in Capture One).
-
Further random thoughts:
(1) Battery issue is fixed.
(2) The zoom and 120mm macro are far too large. They balance well, and are outstanding, but they. are. huge. Especially as compared to similar focal lengths for other medium format systems (and I've used an awful lot of different systems over the years). The 240mm is also gargantuan, but not surprisingly so for its focal length.
(3) There are things in the menu accessible via the top touch screen that are not in the menu accessible from the digital back. E.g., focus trim is *only* accessible via the former. That's crazy: the same menu items should be accessible via both menus.
(4) The user's manual is totally silent on how to (a) access and (b) use focus trim. Sufficient web searching revealed the answers to both, but both really should be in the manual in detail.
(5) Focus trim does work well. I've calibrated 2 lenses thus far, the 110mm and the 80mm. Both only required a slight adjustment, and both were already pretty sharp/spot on. But a slight focus trim adjustment (-100 on one; forget about the other) does make a visible difference, at least for wide open aperture and zoomed in at 100%. It's incrementally better (it was pretty good from the beginning), but those incremental differences will be visible with 100mp if printing large.
(5) More and more impressed with the files as I work with them.
(6) The Capture One software started crashing upon startup. It will successfully launch the second time, but has started consistently crashing on the first launch.
Small things:
(7) I appreciate the high quality metal lens hoods. Leica should be embarrassed for the plastic hoods it supplies with Leica S lenses).
8. The Phase Schneider lenses have two markings on the body's lens mount and the mount of each lens: one red, one blue. One is easier to line up if you're looking at the camera from the front (as perhaps when changing a lens while the camera's still mounted on a tripod) and the other easier to line up when looking at the camera from the top (as when holding the camera in your left hand and changing the lens with your right hand, looking down at the camera). Very useful.
-
ad 2: The 120mm isn't particularly large in my opinion. I had a sigma 150mm 2.8 that was about the same size (slightly longer) and weight. I doubt you'll be able to get a much smaller macro in medium format with a similar focal length and aperture.
ad 6: what are your system specs? are you using the latest version with current updates?
-
This 120mm is *much* larger than my Contax 645 120mm Makro (which I still have), somewhat larger than the Leica S 120mm Macro as I recall (I don't have one but I've handled it), and at least as large or larger than whatever macro I had when I had the Rollei 6008, as I recall (and that one was mighty big).
I am indeed using the current version of C1. Might be something buggy on my Mac rather than in C1. If it persists, I'll raise a support case with Phase.
-
Are both lenses equipped with the same technology? AF, LS,..?
How much memory does your Mac have? Which version of OSX are you running?
-
Shot the attached while on a work trip. This is a crop of about half of the original image.
Technical details: single exposure, ISO 1600, 40-80mm zoom at 65mm; f16; 1/200th; auto white balance; tripod. No noise reduction beyond the C1 defaults.
It's obviously hard to see at the reduced web file size, but the detail in this image in the full-res file is unbelievable. Because I purposefully underexposed (and then further adjusted levels and contrast in C1), there's much more detail there than appears in the final version, because I made the shadows so dark. Below the final edited version, you can see (a) the original exposure and (b) the original boosted by about 1.5 stops in C1.
Notes:
(1) It was getting dark and the subject was strongly backlit (much more so than it may appear from the final image: I brought the exposure down in C1 by about 1.5-2 stops to get the mood I wanted). The XF's autofocus had no problem nailing focus on the bridge: no hunting at all.
(2) I was shooting from a very low angle and crouching down to be able to look thru the prism. It's been so long since I've used a digital medium format camera with a waist level viewfinder that I forgot that I had one with me for the XF!
-
Original and +1.6 exposure in C1 below.
-
I just decided to download the files from the IQ3 100, and my initial impressions are ... I'm not too impressed. Or, I should say my expectations were higher then what was actually delivered.
Yes, the detail is nice, but I don't need it.
Better live view is nice, but I don't need it.
Better very long exposures are nice, but I don't need it.
I knew all this going in though.
What I was looking for was the high ISO performance. With all of the comments about how CMOS is SO much better then CCD, I was expecting an ISO 800 IQ3 100 file to compete with a ISO 100 IQ360 or 380 file. It does not. It is more like the ISO 800 IQ3 100 is similar to an ISO 400 on a IQ360/380.
And to be honest, I think I would rather have a Sensor+ ISO 400 from an IQ360, especially an IQ380, then an ISO 400 on the IQ3 100.
Sensor+ really blow my socks off. I recently just got around to doing a test on my fiancee's 260 of Sensor+ and it really is the one recent thing that I am truly impressed by (even though I know it is an older technology). The difference in IQ between an ISO 400 and an ISO 400+ is night and day. Even when reducing the full res file down to the Sensor+ size, there is still no comparison.
I think P1 not incorporating Sensor+ on the IQ3 100 was a big mistake. If they did that, then that back would be completely unapproachable in ISO performance.
-
Different people different needs. For my sensor plus was the most useless feature of all. Tried it a few times never really liked it, never needed it never used again.
I think it depends a lot. For me the step from the IQ180 to the Iq310 was a huge one. The file quality just (for me) is a different world. I just finished some work where I just for fun used ISO 1600 on it and the files printed are just stunning. Better than anything I can do with the IQ180. Besides I could have never done it with it.
I do still use my IQ180 and do like it and liked it a lot. Just would never want to go back from the 3100
Christopher Hauser
ch@chauser.eu
-
One thing I have noticed is with the IQ100, the the higher ISO from 400 on up benefits from slight over exposure, something that did not help on my 260. I also find that 400 and 800 hold much better saturation than the CCD backs, especially in areas lacking of light. It seems that the 100 has a bit more headroom for highlights than the IQ250/350/150 did.
No doubt that sensor plus with a 260, in both 400+ and 800+ is very impressive albeit @1/4 of the resolution and I never really got my head around that at least on the 260 as I have plenty of great 16MP non Phase One cameras with great glass. The 280/380 I came close to purchasing as the 20Mp sensor plus still gives the user quite a bit to work with and it's as clean as the 260.
I also agree that sensor plus on the IQ100 would have been possible a huge move for Phase One, (just look at the multishot high ISO from the Pentax K1, about the cleanest ISO 6400 I have ever seen), and not sure why that was not done. It may be something that is added to later versions of the back, but I do remember that Dalsa/Phase worked together on the sensor plus tech, and so Sony would now have to make another chip. It will be interesting to see what Phase pulls out at Photokina for sure. But 25MP from sensor plus would probably have rivaled the best from the current sensor plus tech from CCD.
Still the king now, is the 120MP of the Pentax K1, (I assume that is what that chip makes, as it's 4 36MP shots), the high ISO from that technology is by far the best I have seen from any vendor and it's terrible that the Pentax can't work with Nikon/Canon glass.
Paul C
-
If your main concern is resolution, then I contest that Sensor+ would not make any sense. And when I work with designers or on product shoots, resolution (and pixel peeping) is the name of the game.
But with lifestyle, having higher ISO capabilities is pretty important. Resolution less so; you can do a lot with 15 MP. Although 20 MP would make me feel more at ease, more cropping abilities.
What really gets me is the shadow recovery at 200+ & 400+ is very nice, and it seems better then the IQ3 100 at those ISOs. Even 800+ is nice, but here I may prefer the newer back. I would love to test the 380 and 3 100 next to each other.
The other thing is the noise structure of CMOS always put me off. I think CCD noise, when at the same levels, is "prettier." Call me crazy, but that is how I feel.
Last, let's not forget that none of these cameras (even the Sony and Nikons, but not Canon) have true high ISOs. A ISO 800 image is really a ISO 50 image pushed 4 stops in the raw processor. So a big part of the noise reduction is inherent in how good the raw processor is.
-
No doubt that sensor plus with a 260, in both 400+ and 800+ is very impressive albeit @1/4 of the resolution and I never really got my head around that
Same here ... I would just opt for my Nikon setup if I needed higher ISO rather than turn my MFDB into a 20mp device.
-
Word.
From usage thus far, I get what I expect out of the XF100 in terms of higher ISOs: the ability to shoot handheld under reasonable natural light at, say, ISO 800 at 250th rather than ISO 200 at 1/60th and thereby have a reasonable chance of a non-shaken shot, with unobjectionable noise/grain and good color and contrast. I wasn't expecting miracles at ISO 1600, 3200, etc.
I will say that the Leica S 007 appears to have about a 1 stop advantage at higher ISO over the XF100, at least with only the default noise reduction in Lightroom/C1 (and their defaults may well be different). At a glance and without any real testing at all, ISO 1600 is about my comfort limit with the 007 (I'll go to 3200 in a pinch) whereas ISO 800 is about my comfort limit with the XF (I'll go to 1600 in a pinch, as with the images above).
As I get to know the XF more, my impression on this might change. In addition, I do realize that my assessment of the XF's noise is thus far based solely on reviewing on the computer (which maximizes the tendency to pixel peep): I haven't made any prints from it yet.
Same here ... I would just opt for my Nikon setup if I needed higher ISO rather than turn my MFDB into a 20mp device.
-
I will say that the Leica S 007 appears to have about a 1 stop advantage at higher ISO over the XF100, at least with only the default noise reduction in Lightroom/C1 (and their defaults may well be different). At a glance and without any real testing at all, ISO 1600 is about my comfort limit with the 007 (I'll go to 3200 in a pinch) whereas ISO 800 is about my comfort limit with the XF (I'll go to 1600 in a pinch, as with the images above).
Redo this evaluation by comparing prints rather than looking at 100% and you'll find this flips the other direction. One of the advantages of 100mp is that if you're printing "medium" sized prints like 40" wide you'll notice all the grain/noise is around the size of the ink dots and therefore basically not visible. Since the 007 cropped to a 4:3 is around 1/3rd the resolution it needs to be significantly better at 100% on screen to have the same detail/tonality/noise-rendition as the IQ3 100mp to come out ahead in an actual print.
Viewing a 100mp image at 100% is appropriate only if you plan on making very large prints.
Also play around with noise reduction in C1. I find the defaults too harsh. I don't mind grain if it is even, homogenous and uniform in color, rather than clumpy or colorful.
-
Yep, that seems likely (hence my last paragraph of my previous post).
Redo this evaluation by comparing prints rather than looking at 100% and you'll find this flips the other direction. One of the advantages of 100mp is that if you're printing "medium" sized prints like 40" wide you'll notice all the grain/noise is around the size of the ink dots and therefore basically not visible. Since the 007 cropped to a 4:3 is around 1/3rd the resolution it needs to be significantly better at 100% on screen to have the same detail/tonality/noise-rendition as the IQ3 100mp to come out ahead in an actual print.
Viewing a 100mp image at 100% is appropriate only if you plan on making very large prints.
Also play around with noise reduction in C1. I find the defaults too harsh. I don't mind grain if it is even, homogenous and uniform in color, rather than clumpy or colorful.
-
I got the XF camera with my IQ100, and basically don't use it. It's insanely noisy for my needs (working on the street) and that mirror clunk is far, FAR too loud/ too much shock. Of course, ymmv - maybe you do landscapes and use mirror lock up on a tripod?
Yes, it's got some clever software bits on it, (auto focus stacking, for example) but I'm happier using the IQ on my tech camera, with tech lenses that don't need to be compromised designs with deep retrofocus to accommodate that large mirror box. I've left XF in the drawer for months now, and doubt it's got 200 activations on it. Sorry, I feel rather guilty about this, but it's just an ancient design of camera that doesn't belong in the 21C.
Next step will be on chip AF phase detection for MF, but then Phase will be stuck with a lens line designed for SLR style bodies, rather than mirrorless ones. Sigh. Maybe their Alpa tie-up is the future proofing of this inevitable step?
-
Adding my .02
I spent yesterday with the IQ100 for my H5X (I usually shoot Credo40 but we are making 10' prints). And while my experience previous has been limited to a p25+ and my Credo, the files are very, very impressive. The only negative that I can come up with is that in 5 hours or so of shooting we burned through 3.5 batteries (I was shooting untethered because working conditions didn't allow for a laptop). Up to 800 ISO is exremely clean, and 1600 is totally usable for 90% of my needs. I didn't test higher than that because there wasn't time/the need.
Anyway, just thought I'd add that.
-Doug
-
If the question was directed at me (the OP):
No, I don't do exclusively tripod/landscape/mirror up work. I've shot a full range of styles with the XF thus far: landscape, portrait, street, sometimes handheld, sometimes on tripod depending on the circumstance.
To each his/her own, but I don't find the shutter noise or mirror slap to be particularly obstrusive at all. But: because I don't particularly like digital non-rangefinder mirrorless cameras, I generally don't use them (exception being the Sony RX1, which I do have and use but I've never bonded with the electronic viewfinder-only method), and therefore may not be as conditioned to the near-silent operation of those cameras.
(I do continue to use film Leica M gear and a had digital M body for a while, but rangefinders still offer an optical viewfinder. What I don't like about mirrorless is the lack of an optical viewfinder).
I got the XF camera with my IQ100, and basically don't use it. It's insanely noisy for my needs (working on the street) and that mirror clunk is far, FAR too loud/ too much shock. Of course, ymmv - maybe you do landscapes and use mirror lock up on a tripod?
Yes, it's got some clever software bits on it, (auto focus stacking, for example) but I'm happier using the IQ on my tech camera, with tech lenses that don't need to be compromised designs with deep retrofocus to accommodate that large mirror box. I've left XF in the drawer for months now, and doubt it's got 200 activations on it. Sorry, I feel rather guilty about this, but it's just an ancient design of camera that doesn't belong in the 21C.
Next step will be on chip AF phase detection for MF, but then Phase will be stuck with a lens line designed for SLR style bodies, rather than mirrorless ones. Sigh. Maybe their Alpa tie-up is the future proofing of this inevitable step?
-
I got the XF camera with my IQ100, and basically don't use it. It's insanely noisy for my needs (working on the street) and that mirror clunk is far, FAR too loud/ too much shock. Of course, ymmv - maybe you do landscapes and use mirror lock up on a tripod?
Yes, it's got some clever software bits on it, (auto focus stacking, for example) but I'm happier using the IQ on my tech camera, with tech lenses that don't need to be compromised designs with deep retrofocus to accommodate that large mirror box. I've left XF in the drawer for months now, and doubt it's got 200 activations on it. Sorry, I feel rather guilty about this, but it's just an ancient design of camera that doesn't belong in the 21C.
Next step will be on chip AF phase detection for MF, but then Phase will be stuck with a lens line designed for SLR style bodies, rather than mirrorless ones. Sigh. Maybe their Alpa tie-up is the future proofing of this inevitable step?
I was also not very impressed by the XF mirror slap to the extend that I immediately ranked the camera as being unusable outside controlled environments. This was striking compared to the butter smooth refined noise of the D810's mirror/shutter mechanism. Don't if there is any impact on images sharpness though.
I was really close to pulling the trigger at some point but this was one of the elements that helped me decide against spending such a big pile of cash.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hey Bernard, people have been doing AF with the Otus on the A7R2, using the AF M adapter.
Edmund
I was also not very impressed by the XF mirror slap to the extend that I immediately ranked the camera as being unusable outside controlled environments. This was striking compared to the butter smooth refined noise of the D810's mirror/shutter mechanism. Don't if there is any impact on images sharpness though.
I was really close to pulling the trigger at some point but this was one of the elements that helped me decide against spending such a big pile of cash.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hey Bernard, people have been doing AF with the Otus on the A7R2, using the AF M adapter.
Interesting, but how to you mount an Otus on that adapter if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting, but how to you mount an Otus on that adapter if I may ask?
Cheers,
Bernard
Probably with a Nikon to Leica M ring.
Time for your morning coffee.
:)
Edmund
-
Probably with a Nikon to Leica M ring.
Time for your morning coffee. :)
Indeed!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I was also not very impressed by the XF mirror slap to the extend that I immediately ranked the camera as being unusable outside controlled environments. This was striking compared to the butter smooth refined noise of the D810's mirror/shutter mechanism. Don't if there is any impact on images sharpness though.
I was really close to pulling the trigger at some point but this was one of the elements that helped me decide against spending such a big pile of cash.
well that's an unfair comparison - a (relatively) small 35mm mirror to a much larger MF one. A fairer comparison might be the Pentax 645Z camera to the XF. (Or Hasselblad, or older Mamiya 645, Bronica, etc)
I have the Canon 5DSR, and was amazed how quiet that mirror is too, much better than the old 5D, but wouldn't critique the XF based on that comparison.
That said, I too remain disappointed at how noisy it is, and agree its only use is limited to situations where that does not matter..
-
I have been using the XF-100 for a few months now and I find it the best camera I have used to date but I use it almost exclusively for landscapes/seascapes. I should point out I tend to print very large so my needs are very specific. I never considered it for street photography! Given the weight of the system and the fact that I frequently use the 40-80 lens I can't even imagine using it without a tripod. My backup camera is the D810 which is versatile enough for me for almost all applications. It would be nice to have one camera for all my needs but I haven't found one yet.
-
I can actually handhold the XF-100 pretty well for a reasonably long amount of time, especially with the 80mm or 110mm. Less well, although still possible, with the 120mm. Not likely to do so with the 40-80 zoom, though: that thing's a beast! Then again, I've done handheld with the Leica S and 30-90 zoom -- which is also a beast -- and those came out pretty well. (I used to do handheld travel shooting (Ghana, Cuba, London) with my Contax 645 when I only wanted to take one "serious" camera with me).
That said, the XF would not be my optimal tool of choice for most handheld random street shooting anyway: all else aside, that much $ hanging off my shoulder in a random public location would probably make me very uncomfortable.
I have been using the XF-100 for a few months now and I find it the best camera I have used to date but I use it almost exclusively for landscapes/seascapes. I should point out I tend to print very large so my needs are very specific. I never considered it for street photography! Given the weight of the system and the fact that I frequently use the 40-80 lens I can't even imagine using it without a tripod. My backup camera is the D810 which is versatile enough for me for almost all applications. It would be nice to have one camera for all my needs but I haven't found one yet.
-
I'll way my 2 cents. I'm definitely on the prosumer side of things. I've used various cameras in the past 5 years and moved to medium format about 3 years ago with the purchase of a Leica S. I switched to P1 last year. When the IQ3-100mp came out, I was fortunate to have one in my hands within 10 days of it being announced. Without question, it's the best IQ I've ever seen. I have no problems shooting up to ISO 6400 (I personally don't mind noise in my images). When shooting people (mostly my 5yo daughter), I mostly use the waist level finder. I find it very enjoyable to use and also more comfortable. I have no problems taking shots handheld with shutter speeds around 1/120 of a second. I have not found the mirror "clunk" to increase the risk of loss of sharpness. I would agree though, the mirror noise is very loud! I don't like to self promote but I have many pics on my blog using the IQ3-100mp. The website is http://www.gagecaudell.com/category/phase-one-iq3-100/ . Last, I like a "retro" look to my images and thus I use a lot of film presets.
Gage
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
well that's an unfair comparison - a (relatively) small 35mm mirror to a much larger MF one. A fairer comparison might be the Pentax 645Z camera to the XF. (Or Hasselblad, or older Mamiya 645, Bronica, etc)
I have the Canon 5DSR, and was amazed how quiet that mirror is too, much better than the old 5D, but wouldn't critique the XF based on that comparison.
That said, I too remain disappointed at how noisy it is, and agree its only use is limited to situations where that does not matter..
Agreed, it's probably impossible to reach 35mm level with MF DSLRs, but my feeling was that the gap was larger than I expected.
It probably isn't a problem when using the XF in a pro env.
My hope would be for P1 to release a high end EVF with good manual focus aids (this would become an manual focus camera obviously). This would remove the noise issue (but may replace it by a sensor heat/battery life one?).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Phase One may go mirrorless/EVF, but I will be surprised if they do as it would mean all new glass, or at least an adapter, plus the current LS glass, has quite a bit of weight and a mirrorless body, may not integrate well. The marketplace would be quite small, smaller than traditional Medium format digital is now, and at Phase One's current price point, again I would be surprised to see it.
EVF, that will be Sony, or possibly Fuji as they have the tech in place now and with their pricing model, will reach a vastly larger market.
Phase does have a solution, with the A series, that with a CMOS back, does allow for quite a bit of flexibility. The Alpa TC, is much lighter than a XF body, and you are using the copal shutter, which is basically soundless. Sure it's a very manual solution, but in my case Live View is pretty much always a slower and more manual solution, not to be hand held. Add the iPhone connection and you have a nice package, again costly. But the parts may be cheaper to buy off th used market and put together.
As for the mirror slap, I too had hoped to see a more modern sound to shutter/mirror noise of the XF, but I really don't believe too much changed here from the DF or DF+, I would be surprised if the shutter is anything different and the mirror more than likely the same parts. Phase went for a lot more tech around the firing, i.e vibration reduction mode in combination with the seismograph tech to monitor vibrations. This tech does WORK, and works very well, but as many have noted, it doesn't reduce any of the noise of the shutter/mirror combination.
One last note, is that if you are using a LS lens, and use Live view, then yes, you can reduce the noise quite a bit, and you can do this hand held.
With the IQ100, not sure if this is the case in the 50MP CMOS, when you go to Live view, you have raised the mirror and shutter to be viewed on the back's LCD, thus when you fire the shutter, all you fire is the LS shutter of the lens, and this is VERY quite indeed. I use this solution all the time with the XF and it is a great option.
Paul C
-
The Rolleiflex was a fairly flexible and silent press camera - I wonder why electronic MF has become so huge.
Edmund
I'll way my 2 cents. I'm definitely on the prosumer side of things. I've used various cameras in the past 5 years and moved to medium format about 3 years ago with the purchase of a Leica S. I switched to P1 last year. When the IQ3-100mp came out, I was fortunate to have one in my hands within 10 days of it being announced. Without question, it's the best IQ I've ever seen. I have no problems shooting up to ISO 6400 (I personally don't mind noise in my images). When shooting people (mostly my 5yo daughter), I mostly use the waist level finder. I find it very enjoyable to use and also more comfortable. I have no problems taking shots handheld with shutter speeds around 1/120 of a second. I have not found the mirror "clunk" to increase the risk of loss of sharpness. I would agree though, the mirror noise is very loud! I don't like to self promote but I have many pics on my blog using the IQ3-100mp. The website is http://www.gagecaudell.com/category/phase-one-iq3-100/ . Last, I like a "retro" look to my images and thus I use a lot of film presets.
Gage
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The Rolleiflex was a fairly flexible and silent press camera - I wonder why electronic MF has become so huge.
Edmund
To help justify the pricing? More for your buck? ;-)
I sometimes wonder how long this format will continue to make sense, regardless of expendable income; I get the impression that more and more advertising is going into more and more less demanding mediums i.e. Internet exposure, where pretty much anything goes, and watcher expectations and realisations are so variable and out of producer control. Maybe all computer screens should come self-calbrating. I wish. I saw my own website on my monitor at the same desk and time as my daughter watched in on her laptop Mac: on her device, skin highlights all looked terribly blown, and I'd thought Mac was a photographer-friendly company institution
Rob C
-
Phase One may go mirrorless/EVF, but I will be surprised if they do as it would mean all new glass, or at least an adapter, plus the current LS glass, has quite a bit of weight and a mirrorless body, may not integrate well. The marketplace would be quite small, smaller than traditional Medium format digital is now, and at Phase One's current price point, again I would be surprised to see it.
EVF, that will be Sony, or possibly Fuji as they have the tech in place now and with their pricing model, will reach a vastly larger market.
Phase does have a solution, with the A series, that with a CMOS back, does allow for quite a bit of flexibility. The Alpa TC, is much lighter than a XF body, and you are using the copal shutter, which is basically soundless. Sure it's a very manual solution, but in my case Live View is pretty much always a slower and more manual solution, not to be hand held. Add the iPhone connection and you have a nice package, again costly. But the parts may be cheaper to buy off th used market and put together.
As for the mirror slap, I too had hoped to see a more modern sound to shutter/mirror noise of the XF, but I really don't believe too much changed here from the DF or DF+, I would be surprised if the shutter is anything different and the mirror more than likely the same parts. Phase went for a lot more tech around the firing, i.e vibration reduction mode in combination with the seismograph tech to monitor vibrations. This tech does WORK, and works very well, but as many have noted, it doesn't reduce any of the noise of the shutter/mirror combination.
One last note, is that if you are using a LS lens, and use Live view, then yes, you can reduce the noise quite a bit, and you can do this hand held.
With the IQ100, not sure if this is the case in the 50MP CMOS, when you go to Live view, you have raised the mirror and shutter to be viewed on the back's LCD, thus when you fire the shutter, all you fire is the LS shutter of the lens, and this is VERY quite indeed. I use this solution all the time with the XF and it is a great option.
Paul C
Good points Paul, though you are missing the Alpa FPS, which has a Focal Plane Shutter, and doesn't need any manual cocking. Both that and the TC are very travel friendly. Sure there are focus issues, which could easily be addressed with an EVF using the HDMI out on the new CMOS backs - the tech is all there, but they haven't put the pieces together yet, which is frustrating. Tech cameras have an excellent range of lenses, not compromised for a large mirror, etc.
Good to be reminded of the XF's live view shooting with LS, but of course Live View isn't that great, once you have seen quality HDMI output, it's very hard to go back to old Live View. It's that dramatic a difference!
-
I don't think tech lenses would be a part of a future mirrorless system.
A modern MF mirrorless camera would need autofocus and you need large aperture. Tech lenses with f/5.6 and f/4 doesn't fit there. I also don't think that if they actually make a new integrated system they would allow the type of sensor-lens incompatibilities we see now. Sure they could have LCC integrated into the body, but at least do away with the crosstalk.
And who needs movements? I like to have it, but we're too few. The future is cropping and keystoning, made feasible with really high resolution sensors and sharp lenses.
Much more likely would be an enlarged 135 mirrorless body, shorter flange distance than an SLR but still much longer than a tech cam, and no movements. Use it with current lens lineups via adapter and then later a few dedicated lenses arrives, wide angle first as it's there you can make quality gains.
-
I'm not following the logic regarding the "XF is too loud/Phase should go mirrorless" conversation.
The XF shutter and mirror sounds like what it is: an SLR camera with an optical viewfinder. If one wants a different sound or different functionality than an optical finder SLR, wouldn't that just be a reason to use something other than the XF rather than a reason for Phase to make the XF into a mirrorless camera?
-
I'm not following the logic regarding the "XF is too loud/Phase should go mirrorless" conversation.
The XF shutter and mirror sounds like what it is: an SLR camera with an optical viewfinder. If one wants a different sound or different functionality than an optical finder SLR, wouldn't that just be a reason to use something other than the XF rather than a reason for Phase to make the XF into a mirrorless camera?
If you want to know how slow you can handhold a body you should do actual tests at different shutter speeds to see how slow you can handhold that body. You should not assume the sound of the mirror is more than loosely correlated. In my testing the XF performs better in this regard than other systems I've tested whose mirrors are less *loud* (but actually impact the image more).
A lot of effort went into the specific timing, dampening (an secondary motor catches and decelerates the mirror, unlike the previous DF+), location and design of the mechanisms, and the timing of the mirror, electronic first curtain shutter (only available on the IQ3 100mp) and leaf shutter, to ensure it has the least possible impact on the actual image.
Especially if your judgement is based on a mid-sized print (e.g. 11x14) you can hand hold the XF at surprisingly slow speeds. If you judge based on a 100% on-screen only, and then compare to, for instance, a Leica M8 (which has 10% as much resolution... 10mp instead of 100mp) you'll come to very errant conclusions.
Of course all of this is different than concerns about the mirror/shutter sound in situations where the actual noise (independent of image quality) is what matters. For instance I would not use the XF during a moment of silence at a funeral. But the earlier comment centered around landscape photography where noise of this kind is not an issue.
-
To help justify the pricing? More for your buck? ;-)
I sometimes wonder how long this format will continue to make sense, regardless of expendable income; I get the impression that more and more advertising is going into more and more less demanding mediums i.e. Internet exposure, where pretty much anything goes, and watcher expectations and realisations are so variable and out of producer control. Maybe all computer screens should come self-calbrating. I wish. I saw my own website on my monitor at the same desk and time as my daughter watched in on her laptop Mac: on her device, skin highlights all looked terribly blown, and I'd thought Mac was a photographer-friendly company institution
Rob C
Apple stopped caring about color management or anything pro. They are about Joe Teenage Public, and the iPhone, and making a buck. At one point I tried to sell my $2 colorimeter to Apple, a color geek there told me it wasn't that they refused to buy it, it was that he couldn't even find anyone he could pass the issue on to.
Edmund
-
Apple stopped caring about color management or anything pro. They are about Joe Teenage Public, and the iPhone, and making a buck. At one point I tried to sell my $2 colorimeter to Apple, a color geek there told me it wasn't that they refused to buy it, it was that he couldn't even find anyone he could pass the issue on to.
Edmund
The shape of things to come.
I imagine that one day, those who agonize over getting digital images perfectly processed will find themselves as much the objects of ridicule and scorn as do those, now, of the film era who remember, and know, what got thrown out with the bath water.
Rob
-
As the original poster, I'd like to make a perhaps vain effort to turn the conversation away from laments about Apple, color management, babies and bathwater, etc., and return to the original subject, which is the Phase One XF.
In that regard, a few items on my wishlist in case anyone connected with Phase is still following this thread after wading through irrelevancies:
(1) A vertical grip. As mentioned in one of my first posts in this thread, handholding vertically is adequate as-is, but the more I use the camera, the more convinced I become that an optional vertical grip would be very helpful.
(2) There should be some way to customize the size and layout of the icons on the top touch screen with a greater degree of nuance than there is currently. Currently, there's "classic" mode, which shows a bunch of camera parameters, and then "simple" mode, which limits the displayed parameters to only a few (aperture, shutter speed, exposure comp., and battery status). What I'd like to be able to do is (a) select which individual parameters to display and (b) be able to change the size and positioning of the displayed parameters. For example: When shooting quickly and wanting to change drive modes or exposure comp., I find that the icons are a bit too small: I sometimes end up accidentally touching the wrong parameter. Being able to select the individual parameters that I want to display (beyond the binary choices of classic mode and simple mode) and being able to alter their size so that they each take up more screen real estate when fewer of them are displayed would be very helpful.
(3) After reviewing an image on the rear screen and then going back to shooting, I've noticed that it consistently takes 3-4 taps of the shutter button to get the rear screen to turn off. In the abstract, not a big deal, but the screen should turn off as soon as the shutter button is tapped. The practical problem here is that if the screen is still on as you raise the camera to your eye, you end up being temporarily blinded (ok, that's an exaggeration) and it therefore takes a few moments for your eye to adjust back to the dimmer ambient light looking through the viewfinder. This problem is exacerbated if shooting indoors. It's less of any issue if shooting outdoors in really bright light because your pupils are already constricted anyway. But if indoors, e.g., under studio conditions, bringing the viewfinder to your eye while the rear display is still lit causes your pupils to constrict just as you're about to look through the viewfinder, and it therefore takes a few moments for them to dilate again and for you to be able to see clearly.
It's possible that my first 2-3 taps aren't firm enough for the back to register that the shutter release has been pressed and that the rear screen should therefore turn off; i.e., perhaps I'm tapping it too lightly at first and then progressively more firmly as I realize that the screen hasn't turned off....
(I'm also aware that I can turn down the screen brightness when shooting indoors. The point is that I like the brightness as it is; I just want the dang rear screen to properly turn off when I tap the shutter release once as I'm about to bring the camera to my eye.)
(4) The two-handed operation required to remove the back (for example, to clean it or to do a "power cycle"/reboot if it starts acting wonky) both feels much more secure than the previous method on older P series backs (where it could be done with one hand) but also is really annoying/cumbersome. I tried really hard to see if there was a way to remove the back one-handed: if there is, I couldn't figure it out. As it stands, you basically have to sit down and have the camera in your lap or place it on the floor or a table to get the back off: there's no way to hold the camera body in one hand and still be able to remove the back. I can picture many situations where sitting down to place the camera in your lap or put it on a surface to free both hands isn't a practical method to get the back off to clean it or reboot the system: shooting in Death Valley in the 100 degree sun (which I've done) or doing walk-around shooting (what are you going to do, stop and sit in the middle of the sidewalk to take the back off?) or while standing in the middle of a stream (which I haven't done, but plenty others do).
It's not a huge issue for me: I just liked the old method better. It may, however, be a real problem for someone with a physical disability affecting one of his/her hands.
Still liking it, a lot!
-
Another image attached.
The purpose of this image was to (a) play around with the XF's bracketing shooting mode and then (b) play around with Photoshop's merge to HDR function. Because it was the first time I'd used either function (it's not the kind of shooting I normally do), I'm sure this image is over-processed/could be improved in more skilled hands.
The XF's bracketing shooting mode basically takes a sequence of shots of varying exposures (e.g., -1, 0, +1, which is the default range and is what I used). If I recall correctly, the bracketing range can be set as far as 5 EV apart and can take a sequence of as many as 7 exposures. I don't see any way to make the range of over-and-under exposure independent of each other, however. They're tied together: If you select "1" as the range, it's 1 on either side (one EV underexposed and one EV overexposed). If I were doing this kind of shooting regularly, I could imagine that being frustrating. For example, if based on the shooting situation/lighting I know that I want 7 exposures and that I want 5 of them overexposed (+5, +4, +3, +2, +1); one correctly exposed (0), and only one underexposed and only by one EV (-1), I didn't see a way to do that. Maybe it's there if I were to play around with it more. Or, of course, one could just use manual exposure mode in that scenario.
-
Another image attached....
Very nice contrast; you can see this is a very good lens...
Pk
-
Yep. It was the 40-80mm zoom. I don't remember the aperture or shutter speed at the moment.
(You can also see that my sensor needs to be cleaned: there are about 4-6 dust spots in the sky in the upper left quadrant. I would have cloned those dust spots out had I been planning to print this, of course.)
Very nice contrast; you can see this is a very good lens...
Pk
-
"As the original poster, I'd like to make a perhaps vain effort to turn the conversation away from laments about Apple, color management, babies and bathwater, etc., and return to the original subject, which is the Phase One XF."
Just love a strict disciplinarian!
;-)
Rob C
-
"As the original poster, I'd like to make a perhaps vain effort to turn the conversation away from laments about Apple, color management, babies and bathwater, etc., and return to the original subject, which is the Phase One XF."
Just love a strict disciplinarian!
;-)
Rob C
We already have a Phase dealer with a sense of humor - we can tolerate a user with less of it :)
He does give good a genuinely impressive example of HDR, though. ;)
I hope we will see more of his images.
I just went to my local hifi shop and they had this amazing HDR 4K TV from Sony, images really looked "cinematic" or filmlike rather than TV-ish and newsy. I think 10 bit displays and specially processed films are now the new thing in home theatre content, and we can expect large-size HDR displays in public places, replacing traditional print presentation.
Edmund
-
I tried really hard to see if there was a way to remove the back one-handed: if there is, I couldn't figure it out.
I typically do it with one hand, but then again I do it several times a day so I've had a lot of practice.
Grip the back with your thumb being the only finger that is on the facade with the lock. Slide (with pressure inward) the thumb across the lock onto the release. The back comes right off.
Glad to show you if you're ever at our NYC office or one of our Phase One or Capture One events/training (https://digitaltransitions.com/events-training/).
-
For example, if based on the shooting situation/lighting I know that I want 7 exposures and that I want 5 of them overexposed (+5, +4, +3, +2, +1); one correctly exposed (0), and only one underexposed and only by one EV (-1), I didn't see a way to do that. Maybe it's there if I were to play around with it more. Or, of course, one could just use manual exposure mode in that scenario.
In this case set the exposure bias to +2 and 7 frame bracketing with stop increments Technically that will through in a -2 as well but it's the easiest mental leap. If you want to be exact you can select +2.5 and 6 frame bracketing with stop increments, but it's a larger mental leap..
-
The shape of things to come.
I imagine that one day, those who agonize over getting digital images perfectly processed will find themselves as much the objects of ridicule and scorn as do those, now, of the film era who remember, and know, what got thrown out with the bath water.
Rob
Hah, this is how I feel when I start talking about light with my colleagues. I show up to a shot with a dozen different light modifiers and about 30 different gels, at least,, all of which I know exactly how will work ( even at specific light temperature). Most have no idea what I am talking about.
Recent model lifestyle personal project fun shoot almost through retouching. Hope to have those up next week.
Scouting a 32 story roof deck tomorrow morning that I also hope to tack on an extra day for a lifestyle shoot.
-
Me again. I forgot one of my XF wishlist items:
5. (a) Electronic masks or crop marks in the viewfinder so that you can accurately compose and shoot verticals and square with the waist level finder, and (b) a crop mode that will apply that crop to the images when imported into Capture One.
With a lower-resolution back, this would be too much of a waste of pixels, at least as to shooting verticals with the camera held horizontally. But with a 100mp back, that's far less of an issue.
I'm fully aware that I can just guess at a square or vertical composition when using the waist level, but it would be nice to not have to guess. I'm also aware that, given the proper measurements, I could cut a piece of paper and use it as a viewfinder mask. But neither of these options would result in the crop being automatically applied to the images: you'd have to manually crop each after the fact. And you'd have to swap the piece(s) of paper in and out if you're shooting horizontal, vertical, and square in the same session.
I have no idea whether the XF body has the hardware built in to do this. My Nikon D800 does, i.e., when you select a square or 3x4 crop, the area shown in the viewfinder automatically changes, and the selected crop is automatically applied to the images.
-
Me again. I forgot one of my XF wishlist items:
5. (a) Electronic masks or crop marks in the viewfinder so that you can accurately compose and shoot verticals and square with the waist level finder, and (b) a crop mode that will apply that crop to the images when imported into Capture One.
With a lower-resolution back, this would be too much of a waste of pixels, at least as to shooting verticals with the camera held horizontally. But with a 100mp back, that's far less of an issue.
I'm fully aware that I can just guess at a square or vertical composition when using the waist level, but it would be nice to not have to guess. I'm also aware that, given the proper measurements, I could cut a piece of paper and use it as a viewfinder mask. But neither of these options would result in the crop being automatically applied to the images: you'd have to manually crop each after the fact. And you'd have to swap the piece(s) of paper in and out if you're shooting horizontal, vertical, and square in the same session.
I have no idea whether the XF body has the hardware built in to do this. My Nikon D800 does, i.e., when you select a square or 3x4 crop, the area shown in the viewfinder automatically changes, and the selected crop is automatically applied to the images.
There are some guys around who could make up a custom viewfinder screen with score marks for you. They have the advantage often of adding a stop or so of brightness to what one sees.
Also, you could just purchase some extra viewfinders and leave the required masks in them - expensive, but less so than a 100MP back :)
I think having an extra customised viewfinder is as logical as having a special pair of driving or reading eyeglasses - a luxury, but an entirely justifiable one. I customised my own Hassy VF by cutting out a square Fresnel reading magnifier and replacing the inset round loupe with this square - hey presto, full-field magnification.
Edmund
-
A lot of effort went into the specific timing, dampening (an secondary motor catches and decelerates the mirror, unlike the previous DF+), location and design of the mechanisms, and the timing of the mirror, electronic first curtain shutter (only available on the IQ3 100mp) and leaf shutter, to ensure it has the least possible impact on the actual image.
Doug, how do you activate Electronic First Curtain on the XF with the IQ100?
Thanks
-
I'm not Doug, but see the following according to this page:https://captureintegration.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-whats-the-reality/
"The EFCS is worry free as it automatically activates when using Vibration Delay or activating Mirror Up."
Doug, how do you activate Electronic First Curtain on the XF with the IQ100?
Thanks