Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: teamwiess on March 07, 2018, 07:36:42 am
-
This is something of a dangerous topic given the passions in this forum. Let me note that I am a Phase One shooter and love my kit. That being said, I have noticed some changes in Phase One's behavior lately that could portend an issue or could be absolutely nothing at all. There has been speculation in this forum that Phase One is going to have to change dramatically given the recent improvement in lower priced medium format by coming out with a more reasonably priced solution or just give up on the non-institutional space and concentrate on "where the money is" by going exclusively institutional high end.
It is simple things that have me concerned given the speculation above. One thing that Phase One does well is to market themselves and their users. They do this via their blog and via video vignettes. The blog continues to produce stories but the video series has not produced anything in five month when in the past they have produced one or two a month on average. Similarly they have marketed PODAS heavily as a workshop option. it is also used as a way for folks to actively try the new Phase One products. Three months in to the year and the 2018 calendar is still waiting to be updated with nothing announced as far as I can tell. Is this anything maybe, maybe not but these things are strange given the overall speculation.
Thoughts? Or does anyone know anything that they can say something about?
-
We can only hope that P1 comes up quickly with a mirrorless solution.
I am sure some here will disagree, but my view as someone who considered very seriously to buy one, is that the XF arrived too late and IMHO is too much of a dinosaur to survive long in this dynamic world of ours. It does have some neat features for sure, but is too much of a niche tool. The same can be said of the H6D-100c btw.
The next gen of Fuji GFX and X1D can't be that far off and will be based on 100mp sensors supporting high res/faster refresh EVFs and will have competitive AF across the frame and probably feature eye tracking technology. These seconde gen bodies are likely to resolve the issues found in the current generation and will be damn good cameras with great lenses line up and the possibility to adapt pretty much anything, including the lenses owned by BIG MF camera owners such as P1 owners.
100mp, even if it is on a 33x44mm small sensor, will cover 99.9% of all applications and the appeal of the XF based IQ1x0 will mostly be with Tech camera users... but then again, who really likes to use a tech camera? Only a handful of people really have to and they may find that an Actus is good enough.
The window of opportunity for P1 is becoming dramatically narrow unless they release their own version of a mirrorless camera at prices that will have to be one third of what they are used to selling for. How does that work with their high margin dealer selling model?
They have kept pretty much by themselves the MFDB market alive, so I sure hope they can overcome the current tough spot they are in. They certainly deserve so.
I would hate to see the large MF models go, they are IMHO the only ones that truly make sense compared to DSLRs in terms of look, but the advantages of mirrorless are just too many and much more significant that in the 35mm segment where the best AF remains DSLR based.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Have P1 the Know-how to build a new camera body as mirrorless system?
The actually body come from Mamya.
Jochen
-
I wonder how many different “sky is falling” Phase One threads I could find over the last ten years. Annotating then on the (fully public) timeline of consistently increasing Team Phase One revenue, growing investment in r+d employees, new design lens releases, Capture One features, XF body feature updates, and “firsts” Digital back releases* could be fun.
No, the sky is not falling. And no, the core customer/market for Phase One had not changed to institutions; it was, it is; and it will remain the Pro photographer or serious enthusiast looking for the absolute best.
*first full frame 645, first 60mp, first 80mp, first modern CMOS, first 100mp, first Usb3, off the top of my head.
-
I've read this sentiment expressed numerous times i.e. 'Phase One must develop and release a mirrorless camera body' - I've thought about it and yet I don't understand or agree. What would that bring to the table for photographers? As Doug said Phase One released "first full frame 645, first 60mp, first 80mp, first modern CMOS, first 100mp, first Usb3 ..." etc. and I'd imagine they would focus on something impactful like the next 150MP sensor or maybe even the first sensor physically larger than 54x40 - or something like that.
Just my 2 cents.
-
Mirrorless > It would be a pleasure for landscape photographers (older) if they had to carry less weight. :)
Jochen
-
The forums are the last place I'd rely on for business information with regard to Phase One or the health of the medium format digital industry. Sooooo much speculation, and sooooo many predictions of the demise of the industry and Phase One. I photograph for the present---and like Phase One, the XF and Cambo WRS 1600 combination. I also have a Fuji GFX.
That being said, if Phase One came out with a similar mirrorless system option (GFX), albeit more expensive----I'd dump my Fuji GFX in a heartbeat.
Ken
-
We can only hope that P1 comes up quickly with a mirrorless solution.
Cheers,
Bernard
I can't see a flapping mirror here (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/A-Series.aspx)
-
I wonder how many different “sky is falling” Phase One threads I could find over the last ten years.
FAR less than placing Adobe instead of Phase One in the above sentence. So what? As someone accused of being an Adobe shill for literally decades, just let it roll off your back. ;)
-
I can't see a flapping mirror here (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/A-Series.aspx)
Ha ha, plus one on that.
Anyway, personally, until P1 fixes their massive lens cast issues with the higher MP backs, even present with the Rodenstock lenses, I doubt I'll be buying another back.
I have hopes for the new 150 MP sensor, since Sony is announcing it will have higher acute angle response, but I fear any progress will be negated by the 50% increase in resolution.
My hope is that P1 can convince Sony to make a 100 MP sensor with the newer technology and gear that towards us architectural and landscape photographers, just like they did with the IQ260's long exposure feature.
-
I have hopes for the new 150 MP sensor, since Sony is announcing it will have higher acute angle response, but I fear any progress will be negated by the 50% increase in resolution.
High hopes are warranted, since the 150 MP sensor has BSI:
http://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/news/detail/170301.pdf
Jim
-
I am poised to invest in a new system and was considering the XF100. The X1 came out of no where and has totally disrupted that plan. A 100MP X2D with all these new lenses is very enticing to me. The need for the XF is, I think, diminishing. It used to be easy to justify because that kind of camera was the only choice for a certain kind of quality.
I think the sky is falling comments are fair and not that far off what the camera industry seems to be going through. Watching Canon scramble for relevance compared with Sony relates to this too - the immediate future is mirrorless, it's a revolution. These comments have "always been around" but never before have there been cameras like the GFX and X1D which are offering almost the same IQ for much less. Phase One's King of the Hill IQ has never been challenged, even remotely, and now the gap is closing quickly and at a fraction of the cost.
Phase One went for the more is more approach - More pixels, more camera etc which is questionable at this point. They piled all their money into "more, bigger, best" but it's based on their success when it was really the only thing on offer for a certain kind of quality, and now these smaller cheaper alternatives give as much IQ as you likely need. People are redefining what "best" is. The XF now looks positively dinosaur sized, slow and cumbersome, the lenses are old designs and none really interest me. If you wanted that quality you were stuck with those lenses.
Where does the Phase One and the XF go from here? 150MP? 100MP is already at the point of diminishing returns and I can't imagine there are many actually care about 100MP v 150MP for double the cost or more of the alternatives and a bigger, slower less versatile camera based on an old paradigm. Upgrades in image quality to these cameras may be noticeable but are mostly unnecessary at this point anyway.
I'm almost certain I will be buying the X2D. My guess is it's going to be a an incredible camera that will make something like the XF redundant - this is coming from someone who has used these sort of cameras in an industry where they are standard and my colleagues mostly agree too. I think the H will likely go the same way but hang in a bit longer because it's part of the ecosystem - it might even sell more. They had that VD concept at last Photokina so it's clear they have a future worked out and and it turns out they've been nothing short of visionary.
With the Hasselblad X - you're not even settling for less. It's a really incredible piece of industrial design and manufacture. I can see it becoming "the best". I think it's almost already over and I hope Phase have something up their sleeve because it would be a shame to see them fall.
-
I wonder how many different “sky is falling” Phase One threads I could find over the last ten years. Annotating then on the (fully public) timeline of consistently increasing Team Phase One revenue, growing investment in r+d employees, new design lens releases, Capture One features, XF body feature updates, and “firsts” Digital back releases* could be fun.
No, the sky is not falling. And no, the core customer/market for Phase One had not changed to institutions; it was, it is; and it will remain the Pro photographer or serious enthusiast looking for the absolute best.
*first full frame 645, first 60mp, first 80mp, first modern CMOS, first 100mp, first Usb3, off the top of my head.
True, and those firsts were impressive but Fuji and Hasselblad were the first to offer this sort of camera and that is what is relevant today.
-
I can't see a flapping mirror here (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/A-Series.aspx)
It's not the same thing. Not even close.
-
Hi,
100 MP on a platform built for 100 MP at 44x33 mm makes an awful lot of sense to me.
Best regards
Erik
I am poised to invest in a new system and was considering the XF100. The X1 came out of no where and has totally disrupted that plan. A 100MP X2D with all these new lenses is very enticing to me. The need for the XF is, I think, diminishing. It's a bigger task to justify now. That kind of camera was the only choice for a certain kind of quality.
I think the sky is falling comments are fair and not that far off what the camera industry seems to be going through. Watching Canon scramble for relevance compared with Sony relates to this too - the immediate future is mirrorless, it's a revolution. These comments have "always been around" but never before has there been cameras like the GFX and X1D at such a reduction in cost which are offering almost the same IQ for much less. Phase One's King of the Hill IQ has never been challenged even remotely and now the gap is significantly closing, quickly, and at a fraction of the cost.
They went for the more is more approach - More pixels, more camera etc which is questionable at this point. Phase One piled all its money into "more, bigger, best" but they did that at a time when it was really the only thing on offer for a certain kind of quality, and now these smaller cheaper alternatives give as much IQ as you likely need and probably more. The XF now looks positively dinosaur sized, slow and cumbersome, the lenses are old designs and none really interest me. If you wanted the quality you were stuck with those lenses.
Where does the Phase One and the XF go from here? 150MP? 100MP is already at the point of diminishing returns and I can't imagine there are many actually care about 100MP v 150MP for double the cost or more of the alternatives and a bigger, slower less versatile camera based on an old paradigm. Upgrades in image quality to these cameras may be noticeable but are mostly unnecessary at this point anyway.
I'm almost certain I will be buying the X2D. My guess is it's going to be a an incredible camera that will make something like the XF redundant - this is coming from someone who has used these sort of cameras in an industry where they are standard and my colleagues mostly agree too. I think the H will likely go the same way but hang in a bit longer because it's part of the ecosystem - it might even sell more. They had that VD concept at last Photokina so it's clear they have a future worked out and and it turns out they've been nothing short of visionary.
With the Hasselblad X - you're not even settling for less. It's a really incredible piece of industrial design and manufacture. I can see it becoming "the best". I think it's almost already over and I hope Phase have something up their sleeve because it would be a shame to see them fall.
-
No one seems to mention that the Phase One system is the only system with leaf shutter lenses (AND works with Capture One).
And the new Schneider Kreuznach 150mm LS f/2.8 IF is the only lens I know with nearly no cat eye effect. The 150 mm HC lens is f3.2 and the XCD 90 mm is f3.2.
And only with a Back you can work properly with a technical camera like my Sinar p3 with the superb Rodenstock eShutter lenses.
IMO most studio work can be done best with a big and solid Sinar p3 with IQ3 100 with a big compendium and tilt, shift and swing at the same time in all directions.
-
True, and those firsts were impressive but Fuji and Hasselblad were the first to offer this sort of camera and that is what is relevant today.
Since the X1D and GFX launched we've sold more XF kits than in the period before.
More companies doing more things in medium format raises interest in medium format. Since P1 has the most complete and powerful full-frame 645 solution (IQ back, XF body, Capture One software, wireless control and review, leaf shutter lenses, professional dealer support, wide rental availability, digital tech familiarity, training classes, rapid service, 5-year warranty) so they benefit enormously from that increased interest. In other words, when it comes to medium format, a rising tide lifts all boats big and small.
I love board games so an analogy would be that there are lots of recreation activities; the fact that we are in a board game renaissance with lots of companies selling good board games is helpful to every company in that market. The enemy of a board game maker (Phase One) is not another board game maker (company raising interest in medium format) it's video games or movies (small format cameras, iPhone). It's not a perfect analogy, but maybe it's useful to explain the market dynamics here. Fuji making the GFX helps P1 sell XF bodies. Not the opposite. To make it less an analogy and more direct: we have had numerous people schedule appointments to play with an XF in our NYC and LA offices over the last year, who called specifically because they were exclusively small-format shooters who started looking into medium format solely because of the GFX but once they started researching found Phase One and wanted to see what the difference was before they bought the GFX; some of those people bought GFX and some of them bought XFs, but none of them would have even thought to look into medium format before the GFX. So many people wrongly assume "costs $50k" and are genuinely shocked when they find they can buy a Phase One kit for $10k. Phase One is a very small company compared to Canon, or Nikon, or Sony, or Fuji; they can't reach that many total users as those companies do.
This board is full of the people who have been steeped in medium format for, in some cases, decades. It's the new users that grow the market. It's precisely those users this medium format renaissance is bringing in. It's freaking great. I talk with someone every week who is being brought into the world of medium format, and is talking to me (a Phase One guy) because once you're in that world (whatever brand piqued your interest originally) you take a look around.
Between this huge increase in medium format interest writ-large, and the enormous amount of money Phase One has funneled into R+D projects (those that have already manifested and those that are yet to come) you really couldn't have picked a worse year to make a seemingly-annual "the sky is falling" post.
Mirrorless cameras with a 1.3x crop medium format sensor* are a more recent camera category to be born than mirrored medium format cameras. But saying their advent makes all medium format cameras with a mirror irrelevant is, well, silly. I'm very glad this nascent category exists. A lot of great things can be done in that category. I'm not at all convinced they all got done in the first couple bodies in the category, but that is usually the case when an entirely new category of cameras is born. But even in their nascent form they represent a great option for a specific set of needs, wants, and budget.
Truly, photographers of 2018 are blessed with many very very good options across a huge range of needs, wants, and budgets. Phase One has laser focus on serving the top of that pyramid; the ones for whom image quality and feature set matter more than being able to fit the camera in their jacket pocket, the ones that, in the film era, shot 4x5 (or 8x10, or ULF) or an RZ or a Contax 645. Some of those film-era users hated every second of using such cameras and did it kicking and screaming because they felt forced by the need for a specific amount of image quality for a specific client or a specific print size. Some of them did it because they wanted the absolute best and were willing to make some compromises (e.g. size/weight/cost) to pursue it. Neither of those mentalities is right or wrong; every photographer is different. Extrapolating from your own wants, needs, and budget is less useful to analyze the total market demand than you'd think.
And for what it's worth, if you're looking for a compact extreme-image-quality camera and autofocus isn't critical then it's really hard to beat a P1 IQ3 100mp on an Arca Factum, Cambo 1600 or 400, or Alpa STC or TC. It's a very different camera than an X1D or GFX and will be much better in some kinds of situations and much worse in others. The difference in image quality is not subtle; the IQ3 100mp provides the best image quality you can buy and provides built-in and wonderfully tactile movements. The difference in autofocus (decent vs none) and EVF (decent vs none) is also not subtle. Again, very different cameras.
*Of the kind with autofocus, an integrated EVF, and SLR-ish handling. As opposed to a Phase One back on a tech camera, which is also "mirrorless" but lacks those things.
-
Since the X1D and GFX launched we've sold more XF kits than in the period before.
More companies doing more things in medium format raises interest in medium format. Since P1 has the most complete and powerful full-frame 645 solution (IQ back, XF body, Capture One software, wireless control and review, leaf shutter lenses, professional dealer support, wide rental availability, digital tech familiarity, training classes, rapid service, 5-year warranty) so they benefit enormously from that increased interest. In other words, when it comes to medium format, a rising tide lifts all boats big and small.
Mirrorless cameras with a 1.3x crop medium format sensor* are a more recent camera category to be born than mirrored medium format cameras. But saying their advent makes all medium format cameras with a mirror irrelevant is, well, silly. I'm very glad this nascent category exists. A lot of great things can be done in that category. I'm not at all convinced they all got done in the first couple bodies in the category, but that is usually the case when an entirely new category of cameras is born. But even in their nascent form they represent a great option for a specific set of needs, wants, and budget.
Truly, photographers of 2018 are blessed with many very very good options across a huge range of needs, wants, and budgets. Phase One has laser focus on serving the top of that pyramid; the ones for whom image quality and feature set matter more than being able to fit the camera in their jacket pocket, the ones that, in the film era, shot 4x5 (or 8x10, or ULF) or an RZ or a Contax 645. Some of those film-era users hated every second of using such cameras and did it kicking and screaming because they felt forced by the need for a specific amount of image quality for a specific client or a specific print size. Some of them did it because they wanted the absolute best and were willing to make some compromises (e.g. size/weight/cost) to pursue it. Neither of those mentalities is right or wrong; every photographer is different. Extrapolating from your own wants, needs, and budget is less useful to analyze the total market demand than you'd think.
And for what it's worth, if you're looking for a compact extreme-image-quality camera and autofocus isn't critical then it's really hard to beat a P1 IQ3 100mp on an Arca Factum, Cambo 1600 or 400, or Alpa STC or TC. It's a very different camera than an X1D or GFX and will be much better in some kinds of situations and much worse in others. The difference in image quality is not subtle; the IQ3 100mp provides the best image quality you can buy and provides built-in and wonderfully tactile movements. The difference in autofocus (decent vs none) and EVF (decent vs none) is also not subtle. Again, very different cameras.
*Of the kind with autofocus, an integrated EVF, and SLR-ish handling. As opposed to a Phase One back on a tech camera, which is also "mirrorless" but lacks those things.
I didn't say SLR's were irrelevant. I do think mirrorless cameras are what is relevant right now and probably increasingly so. But you make some interesting points and in time we shall see.
I am one of those people who shot Mamiya RZ, Fuji GX-680, 4x5 an 10x8 in the film days for the reasons you mention. Big cameras are necessary when they are the only thing that gives you the results you need. I'm also someone who has been renting the XF100 extensively this last year while testing it and waiting to make a decision on replacing my 160. The back and sensor is incredible. I think the camera is good too but it's enormous and there are other alternatives to consider now. If you consider that the camera needs only to be as big as it needs to be then that puts it in to perspective. It's not so much about "fitting it in your pocket" but other things such as flying with it on airplanes.
-
The history of photography and the equipment used for it shows an inexorable movement in the development of smaller and lighter cameras for producing the highest quality imagery. The inescapable fact is that nobody WANTS to carry around a kit consisting of an XF an assortment of BR lenses. You would only do it if you NEED to do it in order to achieve the image quality you are after. And with the advent of the X1D and the GFX, many are deciding that they no longer need to carry a kit of the size and weight of the XF to achieve that image quality. This process will only accelerate when the new versions of the X1D and the GFX appear with the 100mp sensor. I do think Phase is at risk of marginalizing itself into the equivalent of the high end audio companies that sell tube amps for breathtaking prices, justifying it on the basis that it offers the last 1% improvement in audio performance.
-
I hand hold cameras all day long. I am used to doing that with the Hasselblad H and RZ too. If I can have a camera the size of the X1D to do that with I will be a happy man. Lower shutter speeds, smaller lights, quicker working, more responsive.
-
I do think Phase is at risk of marginalizing itself into the equivalent of the high end audio companies that sell tube amps for breathtaking prices, justifying it on the basis that it offers the last 1% improvement in audio performance.
That would be really sad because the reality is that they don't actually delivery that additional 1%. The manufacturers focus heavily on letting their customers think they do (thanks the weight, appearance and price of their equipments). ;)
There is a parallel to be made. Often I get more real resolution out of my D850 than I do out of my H6D-100c, simply because the focus is so much more accurate. In fact "often" means "98% of the time" when the subject moves.
This will be the same with mirrorless small MF at 100mp vs real MF at 150mp though an OVF. The real resolution delivered by an accurately focused 100mp sensor will be much higher than that of a softly focused 150mp camera.
A majority of P1 users also own a Sony a7rIII or older and they know full well that the slightest focus mistake turns 100mp into 10mp and results in their 40,000 US$ beast performing worse than a 3,000 US$ Sony.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
How do you focus?
Magnified live view should be accurate, except for focus shift and it even handles most alignment problems.
I have really found, that achieving critical focus is not an easy task.
Best regards
Erik
-
Hi,
Mirrorless cameras use the sensor for focusing. That eliminates a major source of focusing errors. A correctly implemented AF-system on a mirrorless camera would provide exact focus in the point of focus.
What can be a problem with mirror less is focus shift, when stopping down. Jim Kasson's experiments with different cameras indicate that focus shift is a significant serious problem, but also that at least some mirror less solutions handle it well.
What also matters is that the new lenses for both the GFX and the X1D seem to be seriously good. Regarding the GFX, I have seen a lot of testing from Jim Kasson. Regarding the X1D, Hasselblad is publishing MTF data for their lenses and the MTF data I have seen on the X-lenses lenses is seriously good.
Phase One could send one of their cameras to Jim Kasson for half a year or so... Jim is not a tester, but he is quite passionate about finding out things.
Best regards
Erik
I didn't say SLR's were irrelevant. I do think mirrorless cameras are what is relevant right now and probably increasingly so. But you make some interesting points and in time we shall see.
I am one of those people who shot Mamiya RZ, Fuji GX-680, 4x5 an 10x8 in the film days for the reasons you mention. Big cameras are necessary when they are the only thing that gives you the results you need. I'm also someone who has been renting the XF100 extensively this last year while testing it and waiting to make a decision on replacing my 160. The back and sensor is incredible. I think the camera is good too but it's enormous and there are other alternatives to consider now. If you consider that the camera needs only to be as big as it needs to be then that puts it in to perspective. It's not so much about "fitting it in your pocket" but other things such as flying with it on airplanes.
-
What can be a problem with mirror less is focus shift, when stopping down.
Just with mirrorless ?
Focus shift is a function of the lens not the camera.
-
Bernard is right.
The biggest issue with these cameras is focus. Personally I still prefer using medium format because when it does hit it is a significant bump in IQ. But I agree something like the Nikon D850 is far more effective tool sometimes at this point in time.
Stopping down isn't really solution and even when you do there is a plane of focus that is still obvious. Especially with something like portraits.
A mirrorless with EVF and PDAF is gong to make a world of difference the end.
Also Magnified live view is not a solution either. It's way too slow.
Marketing is a significant factor in the perception of any equipment.
-
Phase One could send one of their cameras to Jim Kasson for half a year or so... Jim is not a tester, but he is quite passionate about finding out things.
I have been offered a 100MP P1 camera on loan (but not a six-month loan). I turned it down because I don't test stuff that I don't think I'll use.
Jim
-
"are genuinely shocked when they find they can buy a Phase One kit for $10k"
I would love to know what that is? I might even buy one to replace my ageing AptusII back.
Enlighten us please.
Kind regards,
Jason.
-
Buy a Fujifilm gfx50s for less than this. Extremely much better than your old back in every way.
If you try them together you will sell your back the same day. 😉 You can even use your old lenses with adapter.
-
Hi,
Yes, of course. But mirrorless systems eliminate pretty much any other cause of missfocus.
Best regards
Erik
Focus shift is a function of the lens not the camera.
-
The history of photography and the equipment used for it shows an inexorable movement in the development of smaller and lighter cameras for producing the highest quality imagery. The inescapable fact is that nobody WANTS to carry around a kit consisting of an XF an assortment of BR lenses. You would only do it if you NEED to do it in order to achieve the image quality you are after. And with the advent of the X1D and the GFX, many are deciding that they no longer need to carry a kit of the size and weight of the XF to achieve that image quality. This process will only accelerate when the new versions of the X1D and the GFX appear with the 100mp sensor. I do think Phase is at risk of marginalizing itself into the equivalent of the high end audio companies that sell tube amps for breathtaking prices, justifying it on the basis that it offers the last 1% improvement in audio performance.
Well Sir, you can buy a tube amplifier with just $1000 or $1500 or $2000 or $300,000 but even the most affordable one can give you the kind of sound so musical, you never leave you leather sofa, I guarantee! Try Audio Not Kit One as a start ($1500) + Kef Q350($700) loudspeaker... And I prefer my bulky PhaseOne with even 2 mirrors if possible! Good luck
-
There's an easy option for Phase: Release a true FF mirrorless.
A 150Mp FF mirrorless would stand above reduced MF 100Mp offerings by Fuji and Hasselblad, affirm Phases's top-dog status, and make a lot more sense with their lens range, which is optimized for FF 54x40 sensor.
-
It is a strange topic. Beyond the general movement of the image industry
That bets for smaller, lighter, and highly capable tools, we could ask themselves
This question: when a camera company like Nikon, Pana, Sony etc...presents
Its brand new small light and ultra performant model...aren't they shooted by
Camera dinausors like Phase One?
-
There's an easy option for Phase: Release a true FF mirrorless.
A 150Mp FF mirrorless would stand above reduced MF 100Mp offerings by Fuji and Hasselblad, affirm Phases's top-dog status, and make a lot more sense with their lens range, which is optimized for FF 54x40 sensor.
I wouldn't be surprised to see Hasselblad and Fuji make a 54x40 sensor size mirrorless sooner or later. I wouldn't be that surprised if the lenses already cover this anyway.
-
Way to go, Dave!
I am amazed that people don't comment more on the disadvantage of buying a mirrorless camera (or any camera) with a sensor built into the body. Doing so, means, if you want to change the body for new features, you have to discard the sensor. You have far more choices if the sensor unit is s separate detachable unit which you can use on different bodies, such as, the A body in your picture and technical cameras and DSLRs.
Roger
I can't see a flapping mirror here (https://www.phaseone.com/en/Products/A-Series.aspx)
-
Roger,
What would prevent Hassy/P1 from releasing an EVF for the H7D/XF2?
Piece of cake for Hassy at least, they already have the technology.
They would just need 2 new portait lenses with AF optimized for contrast AF (typically a 110mm f2.0 and a 170mm f2.8)... and they have that tech also.
There is more work to do for P1.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
A mirrorless camera is essentially just a digital back with a viewfinder and a lens mount in front.
With the X1D, the cost of the camera is quite comparable to a digital back and the GFX is cheaper than any non second hand back. The GFX even has a shutter built in!
Best regards
Erik
Way to go, Dave!
I am amazed that people don't comment more on the disadvantage of buying a mirrorless camera (or any camera) with a sensor built into the body. Doing so, means, if you want to change the body for new features, you have to discard the sensor. You have far more choices if the sensor unit is s separate detachable unit which you can use on different bodies, such as, the A body in your picture and technical cameras and DSLRs.
Roger
-
What would prevent Hassy/P1 from releasing an EVF for the H7D/XF2?
What makes you think it would require an XF2? The XF was a ground-up design with modern technology throughout. They included a ton of connectivity, unannounced components and circuitry that were not used at launch and have used them to increasing effect in Feature Update 1 (https://digitaltransitions.com/dt-tech-tip-xf-firmware-update/),Feature Update 2 (https://digitaltransitions.com/announcement-xf-body-feature-update-2-capture-one-9-1-2-new-blue-ring-lenses/),Feature Update 3 (https://digitaltransitions.com/feature-update-3-phase-one-xf/), and Feature Update 4 (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-xf-feature-update-4/). They even released a new Autofocus sensor (they use a high-density, ultra-accuracy, dedicated CMOS array rather than legacy line-pair contrast sensors) which XF users could upgrade to, without replacing their body.
The XF was built as a very long lasting platform.
Piece of cake for Hassy at least, they already have the technology.
Hassy does not make the EVF they use in the X1D or own any EVF intellectual property that I'm aware of.
-
What makes you think it would require an XF2? The XF was a ground-up design with modern technology throughout. They included a ton of connectivity, unannounced components and circuitry that were not used at launch and have used them to increasing effect in Feature Update 1 (https://digitaltransitions.com/dt-tech-tip-xf-firmware-update/),Feature Update 2 (https://digitaltransitions.com/announcement-xf-body-feature-update-2-capture-one-9-1-2-new-blue-ring-lenses/),Feature Update 3 (https://digitaltransitions.com/feature-update-3-phase-one-xf/), and Feature Update 4 (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-xf-feature-update-4/). They even released a new Autofocus sensor (they use a high-density, ultra-accuracy, dedicated CMOS array rather than legacy line-pair contrast sensors) which XF users could upgrade to, without replacing their body.
The XF was built as a very long lasting platform.
Hassy does not make the EVF they use in the X1D or own any EVF intellectual property that I'm aware of.
Indeed, an EVF on top of an XF would work, same thing for an EVF on top of an H6D.
What I meant with Hasselblad having the technology is the electronic platform with the right streaming capability from sensor to EVF, the right cooling for the sensor, the contrast autofocus,...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I'm obviously old school. I'm not wild about EVFs even though I own the GFX. I continue to use my XF100 and much prefer it to my GFX even though it means carrying a much heavier pack. I'm most interested in quality and I'm comfortable Phase provides what I need. At the end of the day, I'm betting Phase will continue create products that will be innovative just as all camera companies must do to survive.
-
I'm obviously old school. I'm not wild about EVFs even though I own the GFX. I continue to use my XF100 and much prefer it to my GFX even though it means carrying a much heavier pack. I'm most interested in quality and I'm comfortable Phase provides what I need. At the end of the day, I'm betting Phase will continue create products that will be innovative just as all camera companies must do to survive.
I hate EVFs too... but my view is that today AF on the OVF based MF cameras is a major liability that very seriously affects my ability to tap into the resolution potential of the camera. I am still able to work with it, but an EVF would expand its usage envelope significantly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hassy does not make the EVF they use in the X1D or own any EVF intellectual property that I'm aware of.
The main IP in any digital camera these days is ... the sensor.
Sensor makers have always provided reference camera electronics designs, and in fact I think the first Phase backs were close to a Dalsa design.
So there's no surprise that a sensor made to stream to an EVF should use the specced EVF, the specced read circuitry etc.
Let's see how much "IP" goes in to Phase's mirrorless when it gets released ....
Edmund
-
Hi,
EVFs are getting better, I would presume. But, even now, an EVF is a great advantage when shooting in dark, that is less than well illuminated, places.
Also, an EVF helps with accurate focus. With an EVF it is in generally possible to get pixel level magnification anywhere on the screen. It is just not possible with an OVF.
EVF uses the actual pixels to focus and that eliminates a set of alignment problems. Same said for contrast detecting AF based on reading the sensor.
Obviously, Hasselblad needed to sort out quite a few things with the X1D.
Best regards
Erik
I hate EVFs too... but my view is that today AF on the OVF based MF cameras is a major liability that very seriously affects my ability to tap into the resolution potential of the camera. I am still able to work with it, but an EVF would expand its usage envelope significantly.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sensor makers have always provided reference camera electronics designs, and in fact I think the first Phase backs were close to a Dalsa design.
Notably all Phase One backs made using Dalsa sensors shipped with a Sensor+ sensor design which was designed and patented by Phase One.
All modern Phase One backs that used a Kodak sensor shipped with electronics and firmware that allowed a good one hour exposure when other backs made with the identical sensor maxed out at 30-120 seconds.
The IQ3 100mp Trichromatic (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic/) uses a Bayer pattern designed by Phase One.
In other words Phase One has a pretty solid history of getting the most out of other company's sensors or adding unique value to them. I'm not hinting at any specific thing. Just pointing out the value-beyond-plugging-in-a-component that can be brought to bear by a large and motivated R+D team with long-term focus and consistent funding and leadership.
-
The IQ3 100mp Trichromatic (https://digitaltransitions.com/phase-one-iq3-100mp-trichromatic/) uses a Bayer pattern designed by Phase One.
Whoa! Are you saying the pattern was designed by P1? I thought the dyes were spec'd by P1, but that's as far as it went. Does the Trichromatic use other than one of the four Bayer patterns?
Jim
-
Hi,
I am not sure that it is reasonable to add an EVF on a DSLR, if AF capability should be maintained.
SLR designs normally use Phase Detecting AF (PDAF) that use special sensors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofocus#Phase_detection
Modern sensor designs often have some support for PDAF, usually by masking half of some pixels and making use of the micro-lenses in the front of the detector. But, such devices are not present on the MFD sensors available today. Fuji said that they hoped for Sony making a PDAF capable version of the 44x33 mm chip, but that was not the case.
When Sony introduced EVF on DSLRs, they kept the PDAF system, but replaced the moving mirror with a semi transparent one, so they were shooting trough the mirror. I would call that system a kludge, but it was working reasonably well. But, I always felt skeptic about that mirror in the optical path.
Today's EVF MFD cameras use CDAF. CDAF simply measures contrast at the AF point and varies focus, until best focus is found. So, CDAF requires quite a few focusing attempts, so CDAF systems needs AF drives that can do focusing very fast. So, lenses designed for CDAF usually have some new AF-drives like linear steppers or voice-coil and the focusing group is probably lightweight.
So, getting CDAF working well with existing lenses that were designed for PDAF may be very difficult and I also think that getting a well working CDAF program code may also take a lot of effort.
Best regards
Erik
-
I know of at least nine different bayer arrays and there are likely more. Kodak have experimented with Magenta and Cyan too.
It's no big deal. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The most prolific and successful over the decades is the BRGG.
Phase One has not officially announced what pattern it is, other than some kooky marketing material.
"Designed around the concept of mimicking the dynamic color response of the human eye, we have physically customized the Color Bayer Filter on the 101-megapixel sensor to tailor the color response. This allows the Digital Back to capture color in a new way, unlike anything else."
Bryce Bayer designed the Bayer filter in 1976 to mimic the physiology of the human eye. The Bayer CFA has double the amount of green photosensors, because our eyes have more sensitivity to luminosity in green wavelength.
They may be working with a custom CFA, but I will bet that it's based on the BRGG array, just more variation in a greater amount of photosensors. I don't find that so impressive.
I believe Sony have developed something more like the Foveon Sensor which could really make a difference, moving away from the Bayer array entirely which is problematic.
-
The EVF v Optical argument is similar to the Digital v film debate of years gone by. Wether you like it or not, the EVF is the future.
As someone who has shot medium format digital since as long as it has been around, the weakest link in the chain is focus. I have found the Hasselblad H faster and more accurate than the Phase One XF but still, it's no match for EVF and PDAF of mirrorless.
I was using the H and Phase One yesterday on my shoot and thought of this thread. Even after all these years of using the Hasselblad H, I am struck by how good it's ergonomics are. The camera while a bit bulky is still really quite light and I hand hold it even with the longer lenses, 120, 150 etc all day long without issue.
I didn't really have the same feelings with the Phase One XF when I tried it.
I am happy using Phase One backs on the Hasselblad H but if a smaller, faster, more efficient system is on offer, I'm likely going to take it.
The camera should only be as big as it needs to be.
-
Erik, there are clearly use cases for Live View on DSLRs, and for them, the EVF adds ergonomics that many prefer, and usually higher resolution than the rear screen. PDAF at most adds speed to AF, not accuracy, and hand-held manual focusing is important to many photographers.
Also, I expect on-sensor AF to keep improving, be it PDAF or some new approach like Panasonic’s depth from defocus: the mirrorless and video markets are driving that.
-
I know of at least nine different bayer arrays and there are likely more. Kodak have experimented with Magenta and Cyan too.
It's no big deal. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. The most prolific and successful over the decades is the BRGG.
Phase One has not officially announced what pattern it is, other than some kooky marketing material.
"Designed around the concept of mimicking the dynamic color response of the human eye, we have physically customized the Color Bayer Filter on the 101-megapixel sensor to tailor the color response. This allows the Digital Back to capture color in a new way, unlike anything else."
Bryce Bayer Array designed the Bayer filter in 1976 to mimic the physiology of the human eye. The Bayer CFA has double the amount of green photosensors, because our eyes have more sensitivity to luminosity in green wavelength.
They may be working with a custom CFA, but I will bet that it's based on the BRGG array, just more variation in a greater amount of photosensors. I don't find that so impressive.
I believe Sony have developed something more like the Foveon Sensor which could really make a difference, moving away from the Bayer array entirely which is problematic.
There is an article on this site giving explanation, see here. (https://luminous-landscape.com/phase-one-trichromatic-sensor-explained/)
-
There is an article on this site giving explanation, see here. (https://luminous-landscape.com/phase-one-trichromatic-sensor-explained/)
Thanks. It seems I was right, it's a variable density filter and as I had imagined, probably spread over a greater number of photosensors.
I think the incoming Sony Foveon-like sensor will have more impact on colour but that is likely another few years off yet. Maybe more where it get t the point of being in medium format.
-
I believe Sony have developed something more like the Foveon Sensor ...
Over the years I recall reading of efforts at X3 type sensors (that is the official designation of "three layer sensors" with full color at each photosite) from Canon, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba, but it is not clear that any will do better than Sigma-Foveon's niche market, if they come to market at all.
-
Over the years I recall reading of efforts at X3 type sensors (that is the official designation of "three layer sensors" with full color at each photosite) from Canon, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba, but it is not clear that any will do better than Sigma-Foveon's niche market, if they come to market at all.
I think Sony is probably the most likely to make it work though.
-
Phase will probably survive but because of their software not their hardware. I do think their C1 is very good.
-
Phase will probably survive but because of their software not their hardware. I do think their C1 is very good.
Yes, it is an amazing piece of software!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I agree. Not just their software, but the way their software and hardware integrate. Also the fact they hold they keys to other brands now too puts them in a great position.
-
Can you elaborate?
Best regards
Erik
I agree. Not just their software, but the way their software and hardware integrate. Also the fact they hold they keys to other brands now too puts them in a great position.
-
Can you elaborate?
Best regards
Erik
Lightroom is fading from popularity. More and more people are using Capture One, especially so in the professional fields. Phase One can always ensure their cameras are giving the better results in RAW development because they are in control of it. The are "holding the keys" so to speak. Or they can just easily lock competition to by excluding their cameras, as they do with other Medium Format offerings. Clever business and probably quite visionary to create the platform they have and when they did.
-
Lightroom is fading from popularity.
Your source for this? I know there seems to be a sentiment on this forum that renting software is a bad thing, but I deal with hundreds of customers, the majority of which use Lightroom and started using it because of the low entry point of $10 a month, and the majority of which have never heard of C1.
CC has reached over 12m subscrsibers (http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html). This means Adobe has caught up to the number of registered users it had with the last versions of their CS application. I don’t know how many are Lr users vs all of their other apps, but it seems there are plenty of people that have no problem with a very small monthly fee over the substantial constant upgrade costs every 18 months or so.
-
Hi,
C1 also has a subscription model. I would actually choose that model, specially that Phase One was very fast on releasing a new major version within months after my buying a version.
But C1 supports my P45+ for free and their express version is also free for Sony, the other system I use. So, I test C1 from time to time.
Unfortunately, the fact is that learning best use of a complex program like C1 takes some time. I have used LR since it's inception and now a few tricks.
C1 not supporting competing backs makes sure that users of competing backs don't use C1, except for a few who convert their stuff to DNG and change the camera name from GFX to IQ350.
We may note that Charlie Cramer uses Lightroom in the tutorials. That may be that he prefers Lightroom, but he uses Pentax 645, so C1 does not support his gear.
I think that Capture One is often used for tethered shooting.
What I think is that with the X1D and the GFX medium format has expanded. Hasselblad said somewhere that X1D sales are 6x (or 7X) times H-system sales and the GFX is probably selling well. So, excluding what may be say 90% of the market may not be a smart thing. The market is essentially Team Phase One, Hasselblad, Leica S, Pentax 645, Fuji (GFX). It is to make sure that a low percentage of MFD users use C1.
Best regards
Erik
Your source for this? I know there seems to be a sentiment on this forum that renting software is a bad thing, but I deal with hundreds of customers, the majority of which use Lightroom and started using it because of the low entry point of $10 a month, and the majority of which have never heard of C1.
CC has reached over 12m subscrsibers (http://prodesigntools.com/creative-cloud-one-million-paid-members.html). This means Adobe has caught up to the number of registered users it had with the last versions of their CS application. I don’t know how many are Lr users vs all of their other apps, but it seems there are plenty of people that have no problem with a very small monthly fee over the substantial constant upgrade costs every 18 months or so.
-
This is why you should buy the Nikon D850, C1 supports the files. That's the only interest I have in Phase One, got off their absurdly priced upgrade scam.
-
P1 not supporting the H6D has given me the chance to re-discover LR and I like it.
It has progressed a lot to the extent that I am wondering if I will keep using C1 for my D850/D5 files.
My favorite converter for crafted images remains Iridient though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The EVF v Optical argument is similar to the Digital v film debate of years gone by. Wether you like it or not, the EVF is the future.
Just as much as there are still analog cameras and film, I would expect the optical viewfinder to stay around, even if it only survives in niche applications. For example, with the large, bright and incredibly detailed optical viewfinder on my MF camera, I can focus manually with high accuracy (I also have very good vision, good hand-eye coordination and practice). I cannot do that using an EVF, the resolution of the viewfinder is too limited.
-
Just as much as there are still analog cameras and film, I would expect the optical viewfinder to stay around, even if it only survives in niche applications. For example, with the large, bright and incredibly detailed optical viewfinder on my MF camera, I can focus manually with high accuracy (I also have very good vision, good hand-eye coordination and practice). I cannot do that using an EVF, the resolution of the viewfinder is too limited.
Interesting... Well designed viewfinders zoom to 100% pixel view when focusing manually, which is much more accurate and consistent than OVF focusing.
This is probably the #1 value of EVFs.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Interesting... Well designed viewfinders zoom to 100% pixel view when focusing manually, which is much more accurate and consistent than OVF focusing.
They sure do, but the usefulness of that feature depends on what one's particular photographic practice is.
100% zoom-in, as far as I can imagine, is mainly useful for static subjects and when the camera is on a tripod. The subject is static, the photographer chooses the framing, then fixes the camera and then zooms in on the part of focus to insure perfect sharpness.
The exact opposite is sports photography, where the subject moves all the time. Then, AF is faster than the human operator and properly programmed AF is supposed to recognise the subject and track it.
There is a wealth of subjects in between. For example: fashion models. They don't move very fast and are trained to hold a pause. For these, manual focus is perfect provided the photographer is skilled. One usually uses the camera hand-held, flashes are fast enough that camera shake is not an issue. The photographer takes the camera in his or her hands, frames the subject and focuses on a part that is rarely at a fixed position on the center of the frame. Zoom-in is not really an option, as one loses the framing. AF focus and recompose ( as with true focus from Hasselblad) is another option, but not necessarily faster or more convenient.
-
Hi,
My experience is a bit like this:
- Shooting in the dark, live view is a godbless. You see what you shoot.
- Selectable contrast detect AF-points are great, if you can get a focus lock.
- Selectable PDAF points are a great benefit. Hopefully, the system also uses CDAF to refine focus.
- I don't feel comfortable with focusing systems that don't give me 100% control.
But, I am mostly a landscape/close up/macro kind of shooter.
Best regards
Erik
They sure do, but the usefulness of that feature depends on what one's particular photographic practice is.
100% zoom-in, as far as I can imagine, is mainly useful for static subjects and when the camera is on a tripod. The subject is static, the photographer chooses the framing, then fixes the camera and then zooms in on the part of focus to insure perfect sharpness.
The exact opposite is sports photography, where the subject moves all the time. Then, AF is faster than the human operator and properly programmed AF is supposed to recognise the subject and track it.
There is a wealth of subjects in between. For example: fashion models. They don't move very fast and are trained to hold a pause. For these, manual focus is perfect provided the photographer is skilled. One usually uses the camera hand-held, flashes are fast enough that camera shake is not an issue. The photographer takes the camera in his or her hands, frames the subject and focuses on a part that is rarely at a fixed position on the center of the frame. Zoom-in is not really an option, as one loses the framing. AF focus and recompose ( as with true focus from Hasselblad) is another option, but not necessarily faster or more convenient.
-
Shooting in the dark, live view is a godbless. You see what you shoot.
I also see better in the dark than the live view of the cameras I have tried. As I said, preferences depend on the photographer and what subjects are photographed. For a product shooter, for example, the viewfinder is of little importance as everything is controlled via tethering. The computer screen becomes the viewfinder...
-
I also see better in the dark than the live view of the cameras I have tried. As I said, preferences depend on the photographer and what subjects are photographed. For a product shooter, for example, the viewfinder is of little importance as everything is controlled via tethering. The computer screen becomes the viewfinder...
I'll just chuck a quick 2c in here, I used my d850 for the first time last night. I was shooting blue hour seascape so I had both a 3 stop grad ND and a 6 stop ND on the front of the camera.
To my great surprise the live view on the back of the camera was able to completely compensate for these and show me the correctly exposed image preview (albeit with a bit of noise in the live preview.) And the camera was able to focus using live view still.
I was very shocked and looking through the optical viewfinder I couldn't see anything let alone being able to focus using the optics.
Just a quick input for those who haven't used the latest systems. (My d810 was nowhere near this level)
-
They sure do, but the usefulness of that feature depends on what one's particular photographic practice is.
100% zoom-in, as far as I can imagine, is mainly useful for static subjects and when the camera is on a tripod. The subject is static, the photographer chooses the framing, then fixes the camera and then zooms in on the part of focus to insure perfect sharpness.
What I want for focusing in Live view is (a) zoom region quickly selectable and movable with touch screen (b) "window in window" zoom: the zoomed focusing image occupying about the central half of the EVF image area, withe the framing of the whole image still visible around it.
Is any camera offering this?
-
What I want for focusing in Live view is (a) zoom region quickly selectable and movable with touch screen (b) "window in window" zoom: the zoomed focusing image occupying about the central half of the EVF image area, withe the framing of the whole image still visible around it.
Is any camera offering this?
Good thinking, that would be really useful! I find it a bit slow to zoom in, find the focus spot, focus and then zoom out again to view the whole frame. It is slow to the point I rarely use it.
-
What I want for focusing in Live view is (a) zoom region quickly selectable and movable with touch screen (b) "window in window" zoom: the zoomed focusing image occupying about the central half of the EVF image area, withe the framing of the whole image still visible around it.
Is any camera offering this?
That is my understanding of how the GFX works but I haven’t tried myself so I could be wrong.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
On their X-T2 you can have the image and a smaller window with the zoomed focus point next to it, with or without peaking. Focus point is quite easy to move with the joystick.
See here for the older X-T1:
(https://luminous-landscape.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bbb-IMG_9832.jpg)
Image from here: https://luminous-landscape.com/living-fuji-x-t1/
-
Bernard and Armand: Thanks for the pointers to some Fujifilm cameras.
But I have a new complaint/request: I would like reviews to pay more attention to manual focusing capabilities in cameras, especially for EVF cameras and more generally with Live View modes, where there can be a variety of new approaches being tried. Any good sources? Anyone want to write an article on the brave new world of focusing with EVFs?
-
The D850 has a great feature that you can map to the command dial, a single press of the button inside the command dial zooms to a preset magnification over the selected AF point so you can really quickly check focus. Also works in image review. Personally I don't think that Picture in picture is necessary when it's a quick button click to zoom to 100% and back again.
Regarding live view focussing/ EVF focusing, I haven't done much with the D850 but I did play with the focus peaking mode and it seemed to work really well. The d850 has different sensitivity options so you can select how "fine" the focal point that is displayed by the peaking will be.
-
Hi Bernard,
I guess that you investigated all the options before buying the H6D. Would be interesting to hear how you arrived at that choice. Just curious, I hope it is OK?
Best regards
Erik
P1 not supporting the H6D has given me the chance to re-discover LR and I like it.
It has progressed a lot to the extent that I am wondering if I will keep using C1 for my D850/D5 files.
My favorite converter for crafted images remains Iridient though.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard and Armand: Thanks for the pointers to some Fujifilm cameras.
But I have a new complaint/request: I would like reviews to pay more attention to manual focusing capabilities in cameras, especially for EVF cameras and more generally with Live View modes, where there can be a variety of new approaches being tried. Any good sources? Anyone want to write an article on the brave new world of focusing with EVFs?
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/manually-focusing-the-fujifilm-gfx-50s/
Variants of this approach work well with most EVFs that have peaking.
Jim
-
I guess that you investigated all the options before buying the H6D. Would be interesting to hear how you arrived at that choice. Just curious, I hope it is OK?
Hi Erik,
I believe already wrote about this end of 2016 when I decided to go for the Hasselblad, but here is a short summary:
1. Price: In Japan the H6D-100c and lens set (taking into account the easiness of finding mint second hand H lenses) was a lot cheaper (around 20,000 US$ cheaper)
2. Body feel/bulk: I used both bodies and I just don't see myself working in the street with the XF. My usage has confirmed that it is not an issue with the H6D. I would include here the bulk and weight of the lenses. Although the Schneider lenses are overall better, their size is IMHO beyond reasonnable,
3. Mirror slam: although I have not done rigorous measurements, I did feel that the XF has a much worse mirror shock absorption
4. Double memory card slots: I still don't understand how P1 could do the huge mistake of not including 2 card slotsfor a body design to shoot mission critical assignments. Granted, it took Hasselblad one full long year to get this feature working on the H6D, but it is now working fine.
On other areas such a touch UI, image quality,... I didn't see any significant difference. They are both great.
There are some additional values for the XF, such as the sismic detector, DoF stacking automation,... but I don't think they come even close to justifying the price premium.
The h6D now works find with my Arca and thanks to a custom bracket I designed and had 3D Printed, the usage of an external battery is not an issue. Its much higher capacity is even preferable in the end.
I would do the same choice if I had to choose again... but I am not 100% sure I would buy into MF again. The D850 is just so good
Now, the H6D has finally reached a good functional and stability level, but it has taken way too long for Hasselblad to deliver this and I cannot say I am happy about that. This just isn't acceptable considering how much I paid for this camera. Not even close. And, as a side note, I feel that some users of high end equipment are way too forgiving about the providers's many shortcomings. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Bernard,
Thanks a lot!
Best regards!
Erik
Hi Erik,
I believe already wrote about this end of 2016 when I decided to go for the Hasselblad, but here is a short summary:
1. Price: In Japan the H6D-100c and lens set (taking into account the easiness of finding mint second hand H lenses) was a lot cheaper (around 20,000 US$ cheaper)
2. Body feel/bulk: I used both bodies and I just don't see myself working in the street with the XF. My usage has confirmed that it is not an issue with the H6D
3. Mirror slam: although I have not done rigorous measurements, I did feel that the XF has a much worse mirror shock absorption
4. Double memory card slots: I still don't understand how P1 could do the huge mistake of not including 2 card slotsfor a body design to shoot mission critical assignments. Granted, it took Hasselblad one full long year to get this feature working on the H6D, but it is now working fine.
On other areas such a touch UI, image quality,... I didn't see any significant difference. They are both great.
There are some additional values for the XF, such as the sismic detector, DoF stacking automation,... but I don't think they come even close to justifying the price premium.
The h6D now works find with my Arca and thanks to a custom bracket I designed and had 3D Printed, the usage of an external battery is not an issue. Its much higher capacity is even preferable in the end.
I would do the same choice if I had to choose again.
Now, the H6D has finally reach
Cheers,
Bernard