Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Doug Peterson on September 10, 2019, 07:01:11 am
-
PhaseOneXT.com (http://www.phaseonext.com/)
Recommended Accessories, including DT Exclusive items (http://phaseonext.com/suggested-accessories-for-the-phase-one-xt/)
Update: temporary issue with our HTTPS version so reverted the link to http:// for now
Post your questions, and I'll provide immediate answers :).
-
PhaseOneXT.com (http://www.phaseonext.com/)
Post your questions, and I'll provide immediate answers :).
Does this work with old P series and IQ series backs?
Edmund
-
Does this work with old P series and IQ series backs?
XT Features
With an IQ4: Full electronic integration, automatic metadata (lens/movement/aperture), automatic lens-correction, X-shutter compatibility, native shutter release etc
With an IQ3 or earlier: works like any other tech camera (a plate of metal on which you can attach traditional tech cam lenses and a back)
-
Comparison of GFX 100 with 23mm to XT with 23mm:
(http://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Size-Comparisons-XT-23HR-Vs-GFX100-24TSE-1-1540x894.jpg)
More at our article The Phase One XT is Smaller and Lighter than you think (http://phaseonext.com/the-xt-is-smaller-and-lighter-than-you-think/)
-
DT Recommended Accessories, including DT Exclusive XT Enhancements (http://phaseonext.com/suggested-accessories-for-the-phase-one-xt/)
Example: DT Exclusive LCD Shade
(http://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DT-LCD-Shade-for-the-Phase-One-IQ-1-1540x866.jpg)
-
Another example: DT Dovetail with Compendium Mount for Phase One XT
(http://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DT-Dovetail-With-Compendium-Mount-for-the-Phase-One-XT.png)
-
Doug, just to let you know, there is a typo that states that the Phase One XF is actually a GFX with Canon 24mm TS-E II in the article "The XT is smaller than you think"
-
Okay, I'll bite.
1. No autofocus, correct? Not going to lie, if I buy a small camera I want autofocus. It would be difficult to justify a smaller camera with limited movements that will not allow me to fully use the image circles (I regularly get 15mm to 30mm with my lenses, contrary to what the article implies, and would be more so with an IQ4 150) without some other pluses.
2. I only glanced at the article but did see automatic lens distortion corrections. Does this mean that the back records the shift and will automatically remove the unique "mustache" distortion of the Rodenstock lenses taking shift into account? If yes, will we see a firmware update for existing backs that will allow us to manually record the shift on the back if we are not working with this system?
3. Is the DT LCD shade available to purchase without actually buying the system?
4. You have a Compendium Mount offered as an accessory, but I did not see a compendium. Are you eventually going to offer a compendium, and, if so, how much better would it be then the standard, say, Arca Swiss compendium that does not work well with wide angle lenses?
5. This seems like a on the go camera where you are working a little faster. One caveat to slow you down though is the need for lens cast corrections. Is this now built into the firmware? If so, how does it hold up to performing the correction manually?
-
1. No autofocus, correct?
Correct. This is a manual focus camera.
-
2. I only glanced at the article but did see automatic lens distortion corrections. Does this mean that the back records the shift and will automatically remove the unique "mustache" distortion of the Rodenstock lenses taking shift into account?
Correct. Encoded movements. I'd suggest reading the articles all the way through; lots of nice little touches on this system. :)
If yes, will we see a firmware update for existing backs that will allow us to manually record the shift on the back if we are not working with this system?
I would expect that to be added at some point in the future. Though manually entering and manually updating those values will not be nearly as nice as having them automatically handled by the XT.
-
3. Is the DT LCD shade available to purchase without actually buying the system?
Yes. We're coming off several very very long/busy days and going into a couple more with the launch of the XT. But I would expect to add the DT LCD Shade for Phase One IQ backs to our eStore in the coming week or two; do note that we expect to offer it as a bundle at a price lower than stand-alone. If you're eager for one you can call your DT sales person and they can process a purchase manually.
-
Poor old Alpa with the FPS - they got there first and were years ahead of this:
IQ back with independent focal plane shutter, accepting tech lenses. The same Rodenstock ones.
Combine it with an STC body for movements if you want. (Or not if you don't)
They were a 'partner' of Phase. Now we know what that amounts to.
-
4. You have a Compendium Mount offered as an accessory, but I did not see a compendium. Are you eventually going to offer a compendium, and, if so, how much better would it be then the standard, say, Arca Swiss compendium that does not work well with wide angle lenses?
The DT Dovetail With Compendium Mount for the Phase One XT is a DT Exclusive Product and is described here: Phase One XT Accessories (http://phaseonext.com/suggested-accessories-for-the-phase-one-xt/). It keeps the compendium out of the way of the grip/shutter, leaves that accessory mount point free for other accessories (without having to stack accessories), and keeps the compendium from rotating when you rotate the XT. All around once you see it you wonder why it wasn't built in in the first place (clearly the answer being they were quite obsessive about reducing weight and size on the XT; which worked as it's smaller and lighter than a GFX 100).
The compendium shade itself is a Cambo part; we are Cambo dealers, but the shade itself is not exclusive to DT.
Here is the compendium shade mounted on the XT using the "standard" mount (the DT mount would instead come from just under the camera, and thereby not block the shutter/grip).
(https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/wp-content/gallery/xt-dts-shots/206-Phase-One-XT-With-XT-32HR-and-Shade.jpg)
-
5. This seems like a on the go camera where you are working a little faster. One caveat to slow you down though is the need for lens cast corrections. Is this now built into the firmware? If so, how does it hold up to performing the correction manually?
Today: The XT encodes the movement in metadata and C1 suggests the closest matching LCC from your library of presets.
Future: I fully expect the LCC to just be handled automagically in the same way the dark frame is handled automatically on the IQ4.
Always: The amount of color cast, even without LCC, is darn low on the IQ4 sensor, to the point of being irrelevant for many lens/movement/user combinations.
-
This shade is great doug!
Thankyou I've need one of these all summer and will when I'm in Australia in a couple of months.
What is the expected retail?
Thanks.
Andrew
DT Recommended Accessories, including DT Exclusive XT Enhancements (http://phaseonext.com/suggested-accessories-for-the-phase-one-xt/)
Example: DT Exclusive LCD Shade
(http://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/DT-LCD-Shade-for-the-Phase-One-IQ-1-1540x866.jpg)
-
Comparison of GFX 100 with 23mm to XT with 23mm:
(http://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Size-Comparisons-XT-23HR-Vs-GFX100-24TSE-1-1540x894.jpg)
To be fair, the accessory finder should probably be removed from the GFX 100 for this shot.
Are there any plans for an accessory finder for the IQ4? I immensely prefer the articulated GFX finder experience to that of the LCD display on the back of the camera.
Jim
-
To be fair, the accessory finder should probably be removed from the GFX 100 for this shot.
Are there any plans for an accessory finder for the IQ4? I immensely prefer the articulated GFX finder experience to that of the LCD display on the back of the camera.
I think that's fair.
Such comparisons are always fraught with inequality in one way or the other. Another point of inequality is that the GFX doesn't have an L Bracket attached, which would be required to sort-of match the built-in rotating dovetail of the XT. But they do help to quickly put a system you've never held in person into perspective.
I think it's safe to say P1 has some extraordinarily interesting ideas in mind on how the XT system can be expanded as regards the UI and image review / viewfinder. The XT is a platform in which P1 plans to invest considerable time, effort, and development money. More than that I cannot say :).
-
I think it's safe to say P1 has some extraordinarily interesting ideas in mind on how the XT system can be expanded as regards the UI and image review / viewfinder. The XT is a platform in which P1 plans to invest considerable time, effort, and development money. More than that I cannot say :).
DJI-style goggles could be fun...just give a spare set to the client
-
DJI-style goggles could be fun...just give a spare set to the client
I love it. Total immersive experience :).
-
This shade is great doug!
Thankyou I've need one of these all summer and will when I'm in Australia in a couple of months.
What is the expected retail?
Thanks.
We should have this all ready to share later this week.
-
Will it be possible to convert an existing 23mm HR in Arca mount to the new mount?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I still prefer to look at my XF optical viewfinder to fram my subject; God I've missed my old Lieca M super-transparent finder...
-
I think the “Hoodman HoodLoupe Outdoor Loupe” would be the default accessory for an outdoor camera setup like this. I would prefer it over the “DT Exclusive LCD shade” as I don’t expect that much from it in outdoor situations, checking proper focusing.
Any comparison against a much more feature rich camera like the Fuji GFX 100 looks suspicious to me, especially when choosing a SLR tilt and shift lens which has by default a larger back focus distance. Apples and oranges. Such comparisons could easily turn against you. Think about the missing tilt, very limited lens choice, no AF, no automated exposure functions, no flash functionality let alone HSS, etc. I wouldn’t do such comparison, the XT holds its own value.
Apart from this I think the PhaseOne XT is a great camera concept but I always enjoyed Alpa and Mamiya RZ with its rotating back so that would not come as a surprise ;)
Regards,
Jaap.
-
I think the “Hoodman HoodLoupe Outdoor Loupe” would be the default accessory for an outdoor camera setup like this. I would prefer it over the “DT Exclusive LCD shade” as I don’t expect that much from it in outdoor situations, checking proper focusing.
The Hoodman is a nice product. Some comparative downsides include:
- you have to take it off and on every time, since using it blocks the touch screen.
- your eye has to be right up against the hoodman; no problem if the camera is at eye-height, modest problem if the camera is at chest level, big problem if the camera is above eye level or low to the ground
- it takes up its own small section of your pack; no big deal when, for example, driving around with your kit in the backseat, but more of a nuisance when backpacking a few miles to get to a location. Especially with an XT where the entire kit can be very compact, the space of accessories makes a difference
Our shade can be left on the camera the whole time, and can be stored reversed over the back so it doesn’t take any extra room in the pack. It doesn’t require the eye to be right at the level of the camera.
Advantages of the hoodman include that it will totally black our ambient light and it provides magnification. I’d imagine given the relative price of either hood and an XT that some might end up with both, using ours most of the time and using the hoodman when the scene is extremely glare predicting (eg shooting with the sun directly behind and above you or when standing amongst a bunch of glass buildings in the city).
Any comparison against a much more feature rich camera like the Fuji GFX 100 looks suspicious to me, especially when choosing a SLR tilt and shift lens which has by default a larger back focus distance. Apples and oranges. Such comparisons could easily turn against you. Think about the missing tilt, very limited lens choice, no AF, no automated exposure functions, no flash functionality let alone HSS, etc. I wouldn’t do such comparison, the XT holds its own value.
I agree such comparisons are fraught! I’d encourage you to read the article. https://phaseonext.com/the-xt-is-smaller-and-lighter-than-you-think/
Here is the intro to the section of that article where we compare size/weight to the GFX. I think you’ll find it echos your comments exactly.
In many ways it’s not fair to compare a Phase One 150mp XT kit to a small-format or crop-medium-format camera. The Phase One uses a much larger sensor with more resolution, finer gradations, better color depth (true 16-bit raws), and higher dynamic range. For those used to the spectrum of quality ending with something like a Zeiss Otus, the Rodenstock HR digital large-format lenses used with the Phase One XT are in a league all their own. The XT also has built-in movement for every lens, while small-format and crop-medium-format bodies can only use movements on specific TS lenses.
On the other hand, the small-format cameras have features that the XT totally eschews, such as autofocus, 5+ fps continuous shooting, and video. Really, there is very little in common between an XT and these other cameras, and many ways in which any such comparison is unfair or even nonsensical (like comparing the number of boxes you can fit in a cargo van versus a convertible). However, since everyone has held a small-format or crop-medium-format camera, this is a useful physical guidepost for illustrating the size and weight of the Phase One XT.
-
Will it be possible to convert an existing 23mm HR in Arca mount to the new mount?
Yes, in mid-2020.
You would then connect it to an IQ4 back via a cable in order to power and control it.
-
Can manual lenses, for example SK 35XL, 47XL and 72L from a Cambo WDS be used on this camera?
I’ve been reading some opinions that these symmetrical lenses, while not having resolution as good as the Rodenstock lenses which are required for the ultimate resolution will benefit from lack of lens casts on the BSI chips.
-
Can manual lenses, for example SK 35XL, 47XL and 72L from a Cambo WDS be used on this camera?
I’ve been reading some opinions that these symmetrical lenses, while not having resolution as good as the Rodenstock lenses which are required for the ultimate resolution will benefit from lack of lens casts on the BSI chips.
Yes.
I might suggest these articles tonyou:
- https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/the-phase-one-xt-image-gallery/
- https://phaseonext.com/an-animated-walkthrough-of-the-phase-one-xt/
Both articles go into further detail on this point.
Here is a GIF from one:
(https://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/XT-GIF-Lens-Options-90%C2%BA.gif)
-
I still prefer to look at my XF optical viewfinder to fram my subject; God I've missed my old Lieca M super-transparent finder...
I love optical viewfinders and prefer them wherever possible/practical to an EVF. I own both a Fuji XH1 and Fuji X-Pro 1 and vastly prefer the Pro 1 because of its rangefinder (not even a real ovf) despite it being older and lower in image quality on every metric.
But I've also done a several-mile hike with a full XF kit, and would gladly compromise my love of OVFs in that context.
The cost of an OVF, is weight and size, especially on wide-angle lenses. Here is the XT with 32HR vs XF with 35LS BR. The difference is even more stark once you look at a 2 or 3 lens kit.
(https://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Size-Comparisons-XT-vs-XF-Side-1-1024x595.jpg)
From The XT is Smaller and Lighter Than You Think (https://phaseonext.com/the-xt-is-smaller-and-lighter-than-you-think/).
-
Yes, in mid-2020.
You would then connect it to an IQ4 back via a cable in order to power and control it.
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your answer.
Could you please explain how a Roddy 23mm HR in Arca mount differs from the "new" 23mm for the XT?
My understanding is that the only difference is the shutter, the optics being identical. If I am correct, I don't understand why a converted Roddy 23mm would behave differently than a native xT 23mm.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Could you please explain how a Roddy 23mm HR in Arca mount differs from the "new" 23mm for the XT?
My understanding is that the only difference is the shutter, the optics being identical. If I am correct, I don't understand why a converted Roddy 23mm would behave differently than a native xT 23mm.
Comparing XT 23HR to a 23HR mounted in a copal.
Exactly the same glass (optics).
But X-Shutter provides:
- Automatic metadata for lens model and serial number
- Automatic metadata for aperture and shutter speed*
- Very precise shutter speeds*
- Shutter speeds in 1/3rd stops (rather than full stops)
- Flash sync up to 1/1000 (instead of 1/500)
- Integration to IQ4 UI allowing
--- electronic aperture control
--- electronic shutter speed control
--- electronic capture
- All of the above control also available in Capture One
- Automatic bracketing
Further, if that X-Shutter 23HR is mounted to an XT (rather than an Arca):
- Triggering via built-in XT body Shutter
- Metadata for X and Y movement for automatic lens correction
- No cable required (power/control passed via body connections)
*Using a Copal Shutter the shutter speed was entirely mechanically determined and so the actual shutter speed would vary by a meaningful fraction of a stop, and the metadata was often recorded incorrectly. Like any of the above features, of course, they may or may not matter to a given photographer depending on the work they do.
-
Yes.
I might suggest these articles tonyou:
- https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/the-phase-one-xt-image-gallery/
- https://phaseonext.com/an-animated-walkthrough-of-the-phase-one-xt/
Both articles go into further detail on this point.
Here is a GIF from one:
(https://phaseonext.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/XT-GIF-Lens-Options-90%C2%BA.gif)
Thanks. I think the XT is very cool by the way, a very well thought through refinement of the technical camera concept.
-
Comparing XT 23HR to a 23HR mounted in a copal.
Exactly the same glass (optics).
But X-Shutter provides:
- Automatic metadata for lens model and serial number
- Automatic metadata for aperture and shutter speed*
- Very precise shutter speeds*
- Shutter speeds in 1/3rd stops (rather than full stops)
- Flash sync up to 1/1000 (instead of 1/500)
- Integration to IQ4 UI allowing
--- electronic aperture control
--- electronic shutter speed control
--- electronic capture
- All of the above control also available in Capture One
- Automatic bracketing
Further, if that X-Shutter 23HR is mounted to an XT (rather than an Arca):
- Triggering via built-in XT body Shutter
- Metadata for X and Y movement for automatic lens correction
- No cable required (power/control passed via body connections)
*Using a Copal Shutter the shutter speed was entirely mechanically determined and so the actual shutter speed would vary by a meaningful fraction of a stop, and the metadata was often recorded incorrectly. Like any of the above features, of course, they may or may not matter to a given photographer depending on the work they do.
Thanks Doug.
If that’s the case why not allow the conversion of existing Arca mount 23mm HR to the new X shutter?
As an Arca user already owning a 23mm HR, I am not going to pay 11,000 US$ to buy again a lens I already own just for a different shutter, be it a great one!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If that’s the case why not allow the conversion of existing Arca mount 23mm HR to the new X shutter?
As an Arca user already owning a 23mm HR, I am not going to pay 11,000 US$ to buy again a lens I already own just for a different shutter, be it a great one!
That conversion will be available in mid-2020.
In my response to you directly above I laid out the advantages of [mount in X-Shutter, regardless of body] as "But X-Shutter provides" and then separately the advantages of [mount in X-Shutter in XT mount] as "Further if that X-Shutter 23HR is mounted to an XT".
-
That conversion will be available in mid-2020.
In my response to you directly above I laid out the advantages of [mount in X-Shutter, regardless of body] as "But X-Shutter provides" and then separately the advantages of [mount in X-Shutter in XT mount] as "Further if that X-Shutter 23HR is mounted to an XT".
Thanks Doug.
The scenario I had in mind was a move from my current Area set up to a P1 XT set up.
I now understand that your initial response was focusing on the case where I would have converted the 23mm to X shutter but would have kept using it on an Arca.
Clear now.
Any idea how much such a conversion would cost?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The scenario I had in mind was a move from my current Area set up to a P1 XT set up.
I now understand that your initial response was focusing on the case where I would have converted the 23mm to X shutter but would have kept using it on an Arca.
Aha. Then the only difference is timing and price. Today you can only buy a native ready-to-go XT 32HR. If you want to bring your own lens and convert it you'll need to wait until mid-2020.
Any idea how much such a conversion would cost?
No idea, no. I suspect it won't be cheap, but that covers a very broad range of possible prices.
In the meantime it's always an option to sell your Arca-mount 32 and then buy an XT, or to discuss with your dealer if they are able to offer you a trade-in value for your Arca-mount 32.
-
Thanks!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don’t know why PhaseOne hasn’t chosen for incorporating a focal plane shutter in their XT, like the Alpa FPS. Then anyone would be able to use lenses without leaf shutters, or use existing lenses through bypassing the mechanical leaf shutter.
I presume PhaseOne must have thought about that as well, taking the install base of current optics and rework activities to an electronic leaf shutter into consideration.
Any Alpa FPS owners out here understanding why a focal plane shutter would not be a good idea?
Regards,
Jaap.
-
I don’t know why PhaseOne hasn’t chosen for incorporating a focal plane shutter in their XT, like the Alpa FPS. Then anyone would be able to use lenses without leaf shutters, or use existing lenses through bypassing the mechanical leaf shutter.
I presume PhaseOne must have thought about that as well, taking the install base of current optics and rework activities to an electronic leaf shutter into consideration.
Any Alpa FPS owners out here understanding why a focal plane shutter would not be a good idea?
If P1 used their FPS (focal plane shutter) for the XT:
- flash sync: 1/125
- vibration: more than LS
- aperture control: manual
- lens metadata: none
- durability: ~100,000
- flange distance: uses up several mm
Because P1 used their X-Shutter (a leaf shutter) on the XT:
- flash sync: 1/1000
- vibration: negligible
- aperture control: automatic
- lens metadata: automatic
- durability: 1,000,000
- flange distance: no impact
I don’t have exact weight specs but between the mechanism itself and the impact on the housing/chassis a LS is going to be considerably lighter until you get to a several lens kit. The power draw of a leaf shutter is also considerably less than a FPS since it’s moving a much much smaller mass.
Two advantages of a focal plane shutter (FPS) are:
- reduced cost when the kit has several lenses. It’s not that Phase One doesn’t care about cost, but they are a company that prioritizes quality and flexibility much higher than cost.
- faster max shutter speed (1/4000) albeit without flash sync. This is mostly (though not entirely) covered by sensor-based ES that has come available since the FPS was developed.
-
Thanks Doug, much appreciated!
Some observations w.r.t. a design with an integrated focal plane shutter:
- flash sync: 1/125 => I can’t deny this, but how troublesome is this? Think about the huge amount of cameras with a sync speed of 1/125… 1/250. Can’t be that unusable. I’d also like to mention HSS.
- vibration: considerable => I question this. In many cases with DSLRs mirror slap and shutter vibration are mixed up. Here we only have risk of shutter vibration.
- flange distance: uses up several mm => no impact in case of fully integrating it in the camera design.
Last but not least “It’s not that Phase One doesn’t care about cost, but they are a company that prioritizes quality and flexibility much higher than cost.” => Maybe PhaseOne would be better off if they first care about their customers. Many of them possessing very expensive high quality glass containing mechanical shutters. Solving that problem would be a good example of ‘flexibility’, and not needing to shop elsewhere outside the boundaries of PhaseOne.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
We should have this all ready to share later this week.
So it is now the end of the week, pricing???
-
Some observations w.r.t. an XT design and an integrated focal plane shutter:
- flash sync: 1/125 => I can’t deny this, but how troublesome is this? Think about the huge amount of cameras with a sync speed of 1/125… 1/250. Can’t be that unusable. I’d also like to mention HSS.
The use case here is adding fill flash (or in some cases, key-light flash) to architectural interior shots when direct daylight is streaming through the window. In this use case every stop of flash sync speed means (pick any):
- Another stop worth of lighting ratio between your flash and the ambient light
- The option to bring either half the power packs / heads or power packs and heads that are one stop less powerful
- The ability to light a room 40% taller/larger than you otherwise would have been able to do, without changing the ratio of the ambient light
HSS is a great technology that opens up focal plane cameras to flash at higher speeds in specific situations (e.g. close up portraits you can shoot at 1/4000th flash sync and overwhelm the sun if you choose) but it reduces the effective power output of the flash considerably, and is rarely useful in the use case of architectural interiors.
Obviously, like any technical advantage, this may matter a great deal to a given user, or may not matter at all. That will depend on the photographers style and needs.
- vibration: considerable => I question this. In many cases with DSLRs mirror slap and shutter vibration are mixed up. Here we only have risk of shutter vibration.
Yes, some people mix those two up. However, either can be problematic.
FPS vibration is most problematic within a "bounce" range, typically around 1/8th of a second plus or minus 1-2 stops. It is, for example, very rarely problematic at 1/125th or at 2". You can search "shutter bounce" for more information on this topic. It is typically more problematic with a lighter tripod (such as the one you might expect someone to travel with when they buy an XT motivated by its small and light form factor). It's also typically more problematic with a long lens; there are no such native lenses for the XT yet, but of course there will be in the future, so that has to be accounted for in the body design.
Note that there are three reasons this is more of a problem in high-end medium format than in the broader market:
- the FPS we are talking about here are for full-frame 645 and so are about twice the area and more than twice the weight, so create more vibration
- the resolution (150mp) makes any given absolute amount of vibration/shake/bounce more visually apparent when reviewed at 100% pixel level
- the user base here is disproportionally obsessed with image quality
- flange distance: uses up several mm => no impact in case of fully integrating it in the camera design.
Imagine you now want to add some new accessory such as a lens adapter for other types of lenses or a tilt-swing adapter. In such cases every mm you have eaten up in fixed-cannot-remove body depth is a mm you can't use for that accessory. I would definitely acknowledge this as a lower impact than the other items listed, but it is a real impact none the less.
-
Is there a chance we see a comparison between photos taken by XT vs XF with approximately equal focal lens here? I like to see if there is any meaningful differences regarding quality of XT compared to XF, if anything at all.
-
If P1 used their FPS (focal plane shutter) for the XT:
- flash sync: 1/125
- vibration: more than LS
- aperture control: manual
- lens metadata: none
- durability: ~100,000
- flange distance: uses up several mm
Because P1 used their X-Shutter (a leaf shutter) on the XT:
- flash sync: 1/1000
- vibration: negligible
- aperture control: automatic
- lens metadata: automatic
- durability: 1,000,000
- flange distance: no impact
Shutter type has absolutely nothing to do with manual or automatic aperture control. Shutter type has absolutely nothing to do with transfer of lens metadata.
-
What is the longest lens that is planned to be supported on the XT?
Thank you.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Shutter type has absolutely nothing to do with manual or automatic aperture control. Shutter type has absolutely nothing to do with transfer of lens metadata.
Agreed; Phase could have just as easily put their FPS inside the XT and developed an “X-aperture” for the lens that does everything the x-shutter does, minus the shutter part. Heck, they could have put an FPS inside the XT AND released the x-shutter as is and give the user the choice between leaf, FPS, and electronic shutter.
Obviously these options could result in higher R&D costs and/or costs to the end user and are not “just as easy”, however all could have been possible should they have been Phase’s design goal.
-
What is the longest lens that is planned to be supported on the XT?
There is no upper limit on the longest lens planned.
Natively integrated lenses (with fully electronic aperture/shutter/triggering control etc) will be rolled out based on user feedback. You can submit yours here: https://phaseonext.com/category/feedback/
Logical outcomes of such feedback would likely include native XT implementations of:
- Schneider 240LS BR, including the optional 2X TC
- Rodenstock 180HR
However, I make no promise on when, or in what order compared to other lenses as, again, that depends on user feedback.
TODAY you can use:
- The native XT lenses (23/32/70) which obviously does not including anything long (though in a pinch you could crop the central, say, 50 megapixels from the XT 70mm for a relatively long effective lens length)
- Any Cambo mount lens that does not include a rear extension, including the new Rodenstock 138HR
- Any Hassy 500 lenses
- Any Canon lenses, though many will not cover the full 645 frame of course and you'll want the DT Lens Panel Removal tool for Phase One XT (https://phaseonext.com/suggested-accessories-for-the-phase-one-xt/)l to remove the pane afterward (otherwise the XT makes accessing the release quite a chore).
-
Shutter type has absolutely nothing to do with manual or automatic aperture control. Shutter type has absolutely nothing to do with transfer of lens metadata.
Agreed; Phase could have just as easily put their FPS inside the XT and developed an “X-aperture” for the lens that does everything the x-shutter does, minus the shutter part. Heck, they could have put an FPS inside the XT AND released the x-shutter as is and give the user the choice between leaf, FPS, and electronic shutter.
Obviously these options could result in higher R&D costs and/or costs to the end user and are not “just as easy”, however all could have been possible should they have been Phase’s design goal.
You are, of course, both right on the technical merits. However, from a practical perspective the two are very closely linked as far as product design / product management goes.
The core of the XT lens lineup is the Rodenstock HR series. Other lenses are possible today (Schenider digitar, Canon, Hassy 500) and others (Schneider LS BR? Hassy? Contax?) can be added to the roadmap based on user feedback (https://phaseonext.com/category/feedback/). But I expect the Rodenstock HR series will forever remain the core lenses used by most XT users. They are incredibly sharp, and they have image circles designed for 645 sensors + movement.
These lenses do not otherwise have electronic control. Since simplifying the tech camera workflow is a core design goal of the XT it's important to have electronic control and integration into the system; for example the ability for the back to control the aperture for live view, capture, and bracketing purposes, and for there to be metadata for the lens model and capture aperture for automatic lens corrections.
So the XT definitely needed something to provide electronic control of a Rodenstock HR lens. It ALSO needed some sort of shutter (as sensor-based ES is very useful in many situations, but is limited in terms of moving subjects and flash sync speed).
So how can we solve these two needs: Electronic Lens Control Need and Shutter Need?
One way to solve the Electronic Lens Control Need, the way that Phase One chose, is to put an electronic shutter+aperture unit in the lens (the X-Shutter) and design the body to pass the electronic connections of the lens to the back. This also solves the Shutter Need. Two birds with one stone.
If Phase One chose to pursue a Focal Plane Shutter (FPS) in the body this would have addressed the Shutter Need but, in and of itself, would not have done anything about the Electronic Lens Control Need. As you correctly point out the two are "unrelated" in an engineering sense so adding the FPS has no effect on the Electronic Lens Control Need. So if adding an FPS would mean you'd need a separate solution for the Electronic Lens Control need.
Now, as Matted points out, Phase One could have absolutely done both: a Focal Plane Shutter (FPS) in the XT body and an "X-Aperture" for each lens. However, the result would be a "worst of both" situation in many ways:
- The limited durability of an FPS. Maybe not a deal breaker for many users, especially shooting landscape. But it is, none the less, a clear advantage for an X-Shutter that it is expected (and tested) to last a million captures.
- The increased vibration of an FPS. Maybe not a deal breaker for many users since it only affects certain combinations of shutter speeds, lens length, and tripod/head combos.
- The decreased design flexibility imposed by the mandatory space taken up by the shutter. I can't say more about this since some of the ideas that might take up this space are not public.
- The decreased battery life due to the higher power required to run an FPS vs LS. Carrying an extra battery or two on a longer shoot/trip, of course, is not a big deal, but the XT is built as a Field Camera explicitly with travel-friendly form factor as a high priority, so it runs against its goals.
- The lower flash sync speed of a FPS vs the 1/1000th of the X-Shutter. Of zero importance if you don't use flash. Of varying importance those who use flash depending on when/how they use flash. For some: quite important.
In addition I don't expect an X-Aperture would be necessarily less expensive. An X-Aperture would still require mounting/calibration, an aperture, new housing, and new electronics. Moreover, much of the X-Shutter (including the firmware, software, and mechanical design and testing) comes from developments done in the Phase One Industrial/Aerial division, so didn't carry the full development cost of a new product. An X-Aperture would certainly share some of that, but anytime you make significant changes to a product there is considerable overhead of branching development into a new product (new firmware, new testing, new housings etc). So you likely wouldn't get any cost savings per lens. Notably, by adding the FPS you would get the 1/4000th max mechanical shutter speed which would be useful for fast moving subjects (the sensor-based ES of the IQ4 can do 1/4000th but will exhibit rolling shutter effect on fast moving subjects) and that could be of value to some shooters. You would also gain faster flash sync speed (1/125s instead of 0.3s) for 3rd party lenses that don't have a shutter, though I expect most XT users will be using lenses that do have shutters (e.g. XT lenses, LS BR lenses, Cambo lens panels with copal shutters).
Matted also suggests the possibility they could have done both: an X-Shutter in every lens and an FPS shutter in the XT body. The tinkerer inside of me actually likes this idea quite a bit. But the XT is clearly and unapologetically targeting weight, size, and simplicity as its highest priorities other than image quality. For this to really hit home I think you need to pick one up and use it. We have an article where we compare its weight and size to other cameras and it's pretty surprising. https://phaseonext.com/the-xt-is-smaller-and-lighter-than-you-think/. Having both shutters I think would clearly play against that goal and would make the system even more expensive. But I do like the idea from a "have it all" perspective!
In conclusion, there would absolutely be a few advantages to adding an FPS, but the disadvantages play against the core goals of the XT. How those balance for any given user is of course going to depend on their needs/wants/priorities. If the benefits of a Focal Plane Shutter are very important to the work you do then the XT is clearly not a good solution for you! That's okay! There are lots of good solutions out there that differently prioritize different pros and cons. From the clients I work and the conversations I've had in the last few days, I'd say the vast majority will not miss a FPS and will enjoy the benefits of the X-Shutter, but "vast majority" is not everyone!
-
Just a note that the DT LCD Shade for Phase One IQ is now on our eStore and starts shipping on Monday (Sep 30) and we have a limited number of units in our first batch, many of which are already spoken for. So if interested I'd jump on it now.
DT LCD Shade for Phase One IQ (https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/product/dt-lcd-shade-for-the-phase-one-iq/)
(https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/wp-content/upload/DT-LCD-Shade-for-Phase-One-IQ-XT-23HR-Standard-Angle.jpg)
(https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/wp-content/upload/DT-LCD-Shade-for-Phase-One-IQ-XT-23HR-Reversed-for-storage.jpg)
-
Does anyone have any hands on experience yet? Would love to hear perspectives on the XT as I am thinking of getting one. Also what lenses have you been using?
-
I love my Phase One IQ3100, IMO best IQ hands down. I love Alpa, Phenomenal Quality and versatility (and light). I love Rodenstock, Best lenses in the world IMO. Phase One Blue Ring, second best. I bought the FUJI GFX100 and IMO it's almost a Nikon D850 with 100MP sensor.....IQ is NOT as good as the Phase One IQ3100, IMO.
BUT....why Phase One is "jacking around" with all this amazes me. What US/WE Phase owners need is for the Phase One to have a Phase Detection Autofocus system with a minimal of about 200 points across the sensor like a Nikon D850 or the FUJI GFX100 with group autofocus mode, 9 point, 25 point, closest subject, etc etc etc..... that works flawlessly. Anything short of that in the NEXT Camera is a complete "Waste of Time" and R&D.....Just thought I would say it since no one else does........remember, I started this post with..."I love my Phase One IQ3100".
If Phase One is listening, I am ready to buy...just build it in the 4150 or 4200??.....I am sure I am not the only one.
Just my humble opinion......
-
That would be nice, wouldn't it?
-
I love my Phase One IQ3100, IMO best IQ hands down. I love Alpa, Phenomenal Quality and versatility (and light). I love Rodenstock, Best lenses in the world IMO. Phase One Blue Ring, second best. I bought the FUJI GFX100 and IMO it's almost a Nikon D850 with 100MP sensor.....IQ is NOT as good as the Phase One IQ3100, IMO.
BUT....why Phase One is "jacking around" with all this amazes me. What US/WE Phase owners need is for the Phase One to have a Phase Detection Autofocus system with a minimal of about 200 points across the sensor like a Nikon D850 or the FUJI GFX100 with group autofocus mode, 9 point, 25 point, closest subject, etc etc etc..... that works flawlessly. Anything short of that in the NEXT Camera is a complete "Waste of Time" and R&D.....Just thought I would say it since no one else does........remember, I started this post with..."I love my Phase One IQ3100".
If Phase One is listening, I am ready to buy...just build it in the 4150 or 4200??.....I am sure I am not the only one.
Just my humble opinion......
Which is why I and many others have pretty much given up on the H and P1 systems in favour of the GFX-100. Very similar image quality but a much wider usage envelope.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As much as I love my GFX100, if your after the best of the best, the Iq4 150 is a different beast especially with a great Arca Swiss. ;)
-
I love my Phase One IQ3100, IMO best IQ hands down. I love Alpa, Phenomenal Quality and versatility (and light). I love Rodenstock, Best lenses in the world IMO. Phase One Blue Ring, second best. I bought the FUJI GFX100 and IMO it's almost a Nikon D850 with 100MP sensor.....IQ is NOT as good as the Phase One IQ3100, IMO.
BUT....why Phase One is "jacking around" with all this amazes me. What US/WE Phase owners need is for the Phase One to have a Phase Detection Autofocus system with a minimal of about 200 points across the sensor like a Nikon D850 or the FUJI GFX100 with group autofocus mode, 9 point, 25 point, closest subject, etc etc etc..... that works flawlessly. Anything short of that in the NEXT Camera is a complete "Waste of Time" and R&D.....Just thought I would say it since no one else does........remember, I started this post with..."I love my Phase One IQ3100".
If Phase One is listening, I am ready to buy...just build it in the 4150 or 4200??.....I am sure I am not the only one.
Just my humble opinion......
Hi,
When Phase One developed a new camera from scratch, I hoped it would be mirrorless. Mirrorless technology uses the actual sensor for focusing. That has the advantage that it is not affected by alignment issues and allows for a huge number of focusing points.
But, as long as the AF-sensor doesn't have phase detection and only CD-AF is available it will need lenses that are built for very fast focusing.
Best regards
Erik