Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Vieri Bottazzini on February 15, 2021, 01:06:35 pm
-
Ladies & gentlemen, I just published my review of the Phase One XT, a revolutionary little camera that in my opinion changed tech cameras as we knew it, bringing them into the future.
Thanks to adding electronic communication between the digital back & XT lenses equipped with the new X Shutter, the Phase One XT allows you to control all shooting operations from the digital back, and allows you to record all shooting information into EXIF, including shift. While this seems pretty normal for DSLR or mirrorless users, it's actually pretty revolutionary in the field of Tech Cameras.
If you are interested, you can find the review on my blog, here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html (https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html)
Disclaimer: at the time of writing, I am a Local Ambassador for Phase One. However, since I value my intellectual honesty far more than anything else, being an Ambassador for any brand never stopped me from reporting my findings freely, good or bad.
Enjoy the article, and let me know what you think about the camera. Best regards,
Vieri
-
Ladies & gentlemen, I just published my review of the Phase One XT, a revolutionary little camera that in my opinion changed tech cameras as we knew it, bringing them into the future.
Thanks to adding electronic communication between the digital back & XT lenses equipped with the new X Shutter, the Phase One XT allows you to control all shooting operations from the digital back, and allows you to record all shooting information into EXIF, including shift. While this seems pretty normal for DSLR or mirrorless users, it's actually pretty revolutionary in the field of Tech Cameras.
If you are interested, you can find the review on my blog, here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html (https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html)
Disclaimer: at the time of writing, I am a Local Ambassador for Phase One. However, since I value my intellectual honesty far more than anything else, being an Ambassador for any brand never stopped me from reporting my findings freely, good or bad.
Enjoy the article, and let me know what you think about the camera. Best regards,
Vieri
Thank you for the review and the disclaimers. "Revolutionary" from a technological point of view, yes, I do agree, by all means. Unfortunately, the cost will make it feel more like a failed revolution.
-
Ladies & gentlemen, I just published my review of the Phase One XT, a revolutionary little camera that in my opinion changed tech cameras as we knew it, bringing them into the future.
Thanks to adding electronic communication between the digital back & XT lenses equipped with the new X Shutter, the Phase One XT allows you to control all shooting operations from the digital back, and allows you to record all shooting information into EXIF, including shift. While this seems pretty normal for DSLR or mirrorless users, it's actually pretty revolutionary in the field of Tech Cameras.
If you are interested, you can find the review on my blog, here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html (https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html)
Disclaimer: at the time of writing, I am a Local Ambassador for Phase One. However, since I value my intellectual honesty far more than anything else, being an Ambassador for any brand never stopped me from reporting my findings freely, good or bad.
Enjoy the article, and let me know what you think about the camera. Best regards,
Vieri
Vieri,
As always, a great review, so thank you! I ended up going the route of the Cambo WRS 1600+XShutter lenses because I wanted some of the additional shift flexibility (even if it wasn't always needed) and the tilt/swing capabilities which would still require the cable on the XT with those panels. Because I still get the lens metadata except for shifts, I'm pretty pleased with the system and I like the XShutter itself as a well-built piece of kit. There are tradeoffs (for me) outside of the shift metadata:
- It's a bit heavier than the XT platform
- There's no cabled way to trigger the shutter without touching the camera because the cable takes up the "BOB port". Obviously I can tether over WiFi to a laptop with the latest fw update on the back but that can get heavy/tedious. I can hardly wait for the iOS app they're working on (allegedly :))
I'd love to see the ability to enter shift data into the back directly or via this new app. Because the back has "C1 inside", I'm assuming that's not outside of the realm of possibilities.
Cheers,
Ray
-
Thank you for the review and the disclaimers. "Revolutionary" from a technological point of view, yes, I do agree, by all means. Unfortunately, the cost will make it feel more like a failed revolution.
You are very welcome, glad you enjoyed the read :)
About being a failed revolution, I'll have to disagree with you on this one, sorry. I believe that price has very little to do with how revolutionary a technology is; price, on the other hand, has everything to do with how widely accessible a technology (revolutionary or not) can become. Generally speaking, top end, hyper-high tech gear, on any field, is hardly widely accessible to any purse, and hardly cheap compared to lesser technological solutions doing similar things, and the Phase One XT is no exception. Whether it's worth spending the extra money for the extra features that the XT and X Shutter allows, it's up to each of us; but that doesn't make the XT any less revolutionary, in my opinion.
Vieri,
As always, a great review, so thank you! I ended up going the route of the Cambo WRS 1600+XShutter lenses because I wanted some of the additional shift flexibility (even if it wasn't always needed) and the tilt/swing capabilities which would still require the cable on the XT with those panels. Because I still get the lens metadata except for shifts, I'm pretty pleased with the system and I like the XShutter itself as a well-built piece of kit. There are tradeoffs (for me) outside of the shift metadata:
- It's a bit heavier than the XT platform
- There's no cabled way to trigger the shutter without touching the camera because the cable takes up the "BOB port". Obviously I can tether over WiFi to a laptop with the latest fw update on the back but that can get heavy/tedious. I can hardly wait for the iOS app they're working on (allegedly :))
I'd love to see the ability to enter shift data into the back directly or via this new app. Because the back has "C1 inside", I'm assuming that's not outside of the realm of possibilities.
Cheers,
Ray
Hello Ray,
thank you very much for your message, glad you enjoyed the review. I am very happy with the XT, but if I had to consider an alternative, rather than the Cambo, I think I'd be interested in the Arca-Swiss Rm3di, with X Shutter lenses when possible, to reduce overall kit weight, thanks to the focus and tilt mechanisms built-in the camera body; not to mention that this would make tilt/swing available on every lens (even though, having the tilting fulcrum where the Cambo has it would work better).
As far as the cable release, I use a delayed release for all situation except when I am photographing receding waves, where I need to actuate the shutter precisely and even one or two seconds delay would make me miss the shot. Hopefully, the app will manifest itself sooner than later :)
As far as the ability to record metadata, I believe it should be possible; I'll pass that on, even though I am sure many already did :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
You are very welcome, glad you enjoyed the read :)
About being a failed revolution, I'll have to disagree with you on this one, sorry. I believe that price has very little to do with how revolutionary a technology is; price, on the other hand, has everything to do with how widely accessible a technology (revolutionary or not) can become. Generally speaking, top end, hyper-high tech gear, on any field, is hardly widely accessible to any purse, and hardly cheap compared to lesser technological solutions doing similar things, and the Phase One XT is no exception. Whether it's worth spending the extra money for the extra features that the XT and X Shutter allows, it's up to each of us; but that doesn't make the XT any less revolutionary, in my opinion.
Hello Ray,
thank you very much for your message, glad you enjoyed the review. I am very happy with the XT, but if I had to consider an alternative, rather than the Cambo, I think I'd be interested in the Arca-Swiss Rm3di, with X Shutter lenses when possible, to reduce overall kit weight, thanks to the focus and tilt mechanisms built-in the camera body; not to mention that this would make tilt/swing available on every lens (even though, having the tilting fulcrum where the Cambo has it would work better).
As far as the cable release, I use a delayed release for all situation except when I am photographing receding waves, where I need to actuate the shutter precisely and even one or two seconds delay would make me miss the shot. Hopefully, the app will manifest itself sooner than later :)
As far as the ability to record metadata, I believe it should be possible; I'll pass that on, even though I am sure many already did :)
Best regards,
Vieri
Hi Vieri,
Thank you for passing the request on, the more voices, the better!
Cheers,
Ray
-
Most definitely a failed revolution or at least a revolution out of reach for most. Hard to justify this for a true working professional. There is no trade in the cost of entry for a XT with a 32mm Rodenstock is over 22K US with sales tax. That’s a one camera one lens solution that really can’t be hand held in most situations and requires a tripod for every shot.
Glad to see the technology has been shared by Phase One with Arca and other tech camera companies but the cost to remount the lens with the X shutter is 4900.00 before tax. And you have to ship the lens all around the world to have the work done. Each time a 32mm is shipped anywhere you have the risk of damage during shipping misalignment etc.
Can’t deny the IQ4 is an excellent imaging platform but it’s still not delivering features that were shipped with the 3100. Also the fact that Phase one only allowed the IQ4 to work with the XT is limiting.
As for the XT itself love the built in communication finally between camera and back. But no tilt is a huge issue, period. Tilt is something I use with all my wides and in fact is one of the main reasons I moved to a tech camera.
Can a photograph justify around 70k for a working system with 4 lenses, I really can’t and having a XT with only one lens is rather limiting. I can’t.
Paul C
-
Thanks for the review, it is good to see Phase One has integrated lens communication with the back, something photographers accustomed to DSLRs will be familiar with. Few working pros could make a business case for such an expenditure though, but if I came into sudden wealth it would be fun to have.
Unfortunately this camera falls short for architecture. In architectural photography every mm of shift counts, a serious architectural camera would need 20mm shift in every direction for perspective correction, and also to allow stitching for lenses with larger image circles.
-
Most definitely a failed revolution or at least a revolution out of reach for most. Hard to justify this for a true working professional. There is no trade in the cost of entry for a XT with a 32mm Rodenstock is over 22K US with sales tax. That’s a one camera one lens solution that really can’t be hand held in most situations and requires a tripod for every shot.
Glad to see the technology has been shared by Phase One with Arca and other tech camera companies but the cost to remount the lens with the X shutter is 4900.00 before tax. And you have to ship the lens all around the world to have the work done. Each time a 32mm is shipped anywhere you have the risk of damage during shipping misalignment etc.
Can’t deny the IQ4 is an excellent imaging platform but it’s still not delivering features that were shipped with the 3100. Also the fact that Phase one only allowed the IQ4 to work with the XT is limiting.
As for the XT itself love the built in communication finally between camera and back. But no tilt is a huge issue, period. Tilt is something I use with all my wides and in fact is one of the main reasons I moved to a tech camera.
Can a photograph justify around 70k for a working system with 4 lenses, I really can’t and having a XT with only one lens is rather limiting. I can’t.
Paul C
Paul,
as I said before, the fact that a revolution is economically out of reach for most doesn't make it less of a revolution :)
As far as your criticisms of the system:
1. Tech cameras aren't the best tools to shoot handheld, they are made to be used on a tripod. I would never choose any tech cameras for serious handheld work, there are much better systems for that and any serious photographer would try and use the best system for each job, not forcing what is possibly the worst system for handholding (tech cameras in general) into the farthest possible user case for their gear. Having said that, the Phase One XT is actually more handholdable than any other tech camera out there, not less, at least in my opinion;
2. You can add tilt to the Phase One XT via the appropriate lens mounts, as you can do with all Cambo cameras / lenses, Alpa (via adapters), etc. The only other field camera offering built-in tilt in the camera body is the Arca-Swiss Rm3di or Factum (the latter with serious limitations though). If you are talking about standard & bellows cameras, these are completely different kind of instruments;
All your other issues with the Phase One XT are of monetary nature; let me reiterate that generally speaking, top end, hyper-high tech gear, on any field, is hardly widely accessible to any purse, and hardly cheap compared to lesser technological solutions doing similar things, and the Phase One XT is no exception. Whether it's worth spending the extra money for the extra features that the XT and X Shutter allows, it's up to you to decide :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Thanks for the review, it is good to see Phase One has integrated lens communication with the back, something photographers accustomed to DSLRs will be familiar with. Few working pros could make a business case for such an expenditure though, but if I came into sudden wealth it would be fun to have.
Unfortunately this camera falls short for architecture. In architectural photography every mm of shift counts, a serious architectural camera would need 20mm shift in every direction for perspective correction, and also to allow stitching for lenses with larger image circles.
Hello Harold,
thank you for your comment. About architecture & shift, it depends on the lenses you use. Please see in the review the added graphics, showing how using any Rodenstock HR lens short of the 70mm and 90mm you wouldn't benefit much if at all from having 20mm of shift. Of course, if you use other - less performing - large format lenses, you'd benefit from a larger image circle, but that will come at the price of image quality, especially with 100-150 Mp. As always, it's a matter of compromises, and it's great to have so many options :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
The thing is... if LL crowd can’t afford... who can?
For 99.99% of photographers an XF + IQ4 is already completely out of reach.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Paul,
as I said before, the fact that a revolution is economically out of reach for most doesn't make it less of a revolution :)
As far as your criticisms of the system:
1. Tech cameras aren't the best tools to shoot handheld, they are made to be used on a tripod. I would never choose any tech cameras for serious handheld work, there are much better systems for that and any serious photographer would try and use the best system for each job, not forcing what is possibly the worst system for handholding (tech cameras in general) into the farthest possible user case for their gear. Having said that, the Phase One XT is actually more handholdable than any other tech camera out there, not less, at least in my opinion;
2. You can add tilt to the Phase One XT via the appropriate lens mounts, as you can do with all Cambo cameras / lenses, Alpa (via adapters), etc. The only other field camera offering built-in tilt in the camera body is the Arca-Swiss Rm3di or Factum (the latter with serious limitations though). If you are talking about standard & bellows cameras, these are completely different kind of instruments;
All your other issues with the Phase One XT are of monetary nature; let me reiterate that generally speaking, top end, hyper-high tech gear, on any field, is hardly widely accessible to any purse, and hardly cheap compared to lesser technological solutions doing similar things, and the Phase One XT is no exception. Whether it's worth spending the extra money for the extra features that the XT and X Shutter allows, it's up to you to decide :)
Best regards,
Vieri
Certainly it makes it less revolutionary if it is economically outside the range of most people. To be revolutionary it needs to make a sudden and dramatic impact. As fascinating as this tech is it will have very little impact on photography or photographers.
-
The thing is... if LL crowd can’t afford... who can?
For 99.99% of photographers an XF + IQ4 is already completely out of reach.
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, that is something you'll have to ask to Phase One's management. Markets tend to have a way of taking care of these issues: manufacturers make things and sell them for what price they see fit; markets will tell if they were right. Simple :)
Certainly it makes it less revolutionary if it is economically outside the range of most people. To be revolutionary it needs to make a sudden and dramatic impact. As fascinating as this tech is it will have very little impact on photography or photographers.
Again, the two issues are not connected. Technologies might be revolutionary while impacting very little people, and not be revolutionary and impact the life of millions. Price has nothing to do with how revolutionary a technology is, and the number of people impacted by it has nothing to do with that either :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Well, that is something you'll have to ask to Phase One's management. Markets tend to have a way of taking care of these issues: manufacturers make things and sell them for what price they see fit; markets will tell if they were right. Simple :)
Again, the two issues are not connected. Technologies might be revolutionary while impacting very little people, and not be revolutionary and impact the life of millions. Price has nothing to do with how revolutionary a technology is, and the number of people impacted by it has nothing to do with that either :)
Best regards,
Vieri
Well actually its kind of built into the meaning of the word. To be revolutionary it needs to make a dramatic and rapid change in the field to which it applies. But I guess ad speak has removed that level of exactitude from language.
-
Well actually its kind of built into the meaning of the word. To be revolutionary it needs to make a dramatic and rapid change in the field to which it applies. But I guess ad speak has removed that level of exactitude from language.
Well, speaking of exactitude:
revolutionary
adjective
adjective: revolutionary
1.
involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.
The Phase One XT definitely causes a dramatic change in the way field tech cameras operate: for the first time since their introduction, we see a dramatic design change in what seemed to be an immutable concept. This is revolutionary. Lovers of history would know how often it is that dramatic, revolutionary changes in technology do not immediately get widespread; on the contrary, due exactly to the costs of such new technologies, they spread slowly. Normally, such revolutionary technologies do apply to very few and expensive products at first, only to trickle down to mainstream technology at a later time. Sometimes, they never do become mainstream, and keep applying to very limited user cases and products. That doesn't make them less revolutionary.
It seems to me that people here are confusing "revolutionary" with "it is not revolutionary if everyone can't afford it", which - while something I definitely sympathise with - has nothing to do with whether a technology is revolutionary or not :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Well, speaking of exactitude:
revolutionary
adjective
adjective: revolutionary
1.
involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.
The Phase One XT definitely causes a dramatic change in the way field tech cameras operate: for the first time since their introduction, we see a dramatic design change in what seemed to be an immutable concept. This is revolutionary. Lovers of history would know how often it is that dramatic, revolutionary changes in technology do not immediately get widespread; on the contrary, due exactly to the costs of such new technologies, they spread slowly. Normally, such revolutionary technologies do apply to very few and expensive products at first, only to trickle down to mainstream technology at a later time. Sometimes, they never do become mainstream, and keep applying to very limited user cases and products. That doesn't make them less revolutionary.
It seems to me that people here are confusing "revolutionary" with "it is not revolutionary if everyone can't afford it", which - while something I definitely sympathise with - has nothing to do with whether a technology is revolutionary or not :)
Best regards,
Vieri
I guess we are becoming a bit pedantic and I think it is because we are using different frames of reference. My frame of reference is photography and it seems yours is field cameras with high MP count digital backs. In my frame of reference, admittedly very broad, this tech is almost entirely meaningless and of no consequence. In your frame of reference, as I understand it, this is indeed revolutionary.
-
I guess we are becoming a bit pedantic and I think it is because we are using different frames of reference. My frame of reference is photography and it seems yours is field cameras with high MP count digital backs. In my frame of reference, admittedly very broad, this tech is almost entirely meaningless and of no consequence. In your frame of reference, as I understand it, this is indeed revolutionary.
Well, in my linked article, in the very first paragraph, I say "However, in that simplicity lies a revolutionary product, one that in my opinion changed field tech cameras as we knew them in the digital age. ". So, it's not a question of being pedantic, perhaps it's simply a question of being relevant when commenting: I am clearly referring to field tech cameras, that is what the discussion is about and tech cameras are what the Phase One XT revolutionised. I never said that it's revolutionary for whatever other frame of reference you are considering, of course, since it would be very difficult for me to know what you have in mind in the first place :D
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Thanks for the review, it is good to see Phase One has integrated lens communication with the back, something photographers accustomed to DSLRs will be familiar with. Few working pros could make a business case for such an expenditure though, but if I came into sudden wealth it would be fun to have.
Unfortunately this camera falls short for architecture. In architectural photography every mm of shift counts, a serious architectural camera would need 20mm shift in every direction for perspective correction, and also to allow stitching for lenses with larger image circles.
Agree to a degree. Vey short lenses won't really shift much beyond or even reach the limit of the XT. The real limitation is in the medium and longer lenses, you're definitely short changed there. But this is only a limitation of the XT camera itself.
I've always held that the critical development was the X Shutter, not the XT Camera. And now that the X Shutter is a more democratic solution (available for Cambo WRS bodies and soon Alpa and Arca), you can have the capabilities of the X Shutter on shifting tech cameras that can accommodate shifts 20mm or more.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
I would agree that X-shutter is the key.
The problem here again is the price of the remounting and the compatibility with IQ4 only.
As an IQ3 Trichro user with an Arca and Roddy 23mm, 32mm and 90mm (already an amazingly pricy set up by most standards) I look at a 35,000+ US$ upgrade cost... to be able to leverage X-Shutter.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't see real advantage for the X-shutter.
How would it affect my architectural photography?
Am I missing something?
I shoot normally between 4s and 1/250s at F11.
The Copals are lightweight and precise enough, for me in any case.
The diaphragm of the X-Shutter still has only 5 blades!
Can somebody tell me why?
For me it's not important to see the aperture in the Exif.
I'm interested in the picture.
Regards,
Ben
-
...
I've always held that the critical development was the X Shutter, not the XT Camera. And now that the X Shutter is a more democratic solution (available for Cambo WRS bodies and soon Alpa and Arca), you can have the capabilities of the X Shutter on shifting tech cameras that can accommodate shifts 20mm or more.
...
I would agree that X-shutter is the key.
...
While the X Shutter is necessary, of course, having just the X Shutter and no XT (or, using the X Shutter on different brands, when available) would still leave you with:
- The need to use cables;
- Therefore, the impossibility to use a remote with the IQ4;
- No EXIF info for shift;
This would make some difference compared to the situation before the X Shutter, allowing you the possibility to control aperture & shutter from the body and recording of aperture & shutter data, but wouldn't bring the complete eleven of integration that having the X Shutter + XT brings.
To me, the X Shutter is a wonderful solution for the demise of copal shutters. However, for my landscape work, if the XT didn't exist I would probably just go for an Arca-Swiss Rm3di and lenses in Rodenstock aperture mount: sadly a larger and heavier camera, but with more shift (useful only with the 70mm and 90mm), lighter lenses thanks to no shutter and no focus mechanism, no need for cables, tilt built-in the body. Yes, the electronic shutter is limited, but for the subjects I shoot, that wouldn't be too much of a problem.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
While the X Shutter is necessary, of course, having just the X Shutter and no XT (or, using the X Shutter on different brands, when available) would still leave you with:
- The need to use cables;
- Therefore, the impossibility to use a remote with the IQ4;
- No EXIF info for shift;
Best regards,
Vieri
Yes, although the cables appear very robust, much more so than the previous sync cables.
No remote cable solution (for now), but with the expected release of capture One Mobile (this Spring?), remote trigger can be accomplished without a remote cable.
Those for whom shift info in metadata is critical will miss that feature. However, that must be weighed against expanded shift capability.
You also lose the blue shutter button on the XT.
It's nice to have more options. XT is great because of complete integration and size/weight. Democratic X Shutter now provides 90+% of those features, but with more cameras of choice.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Yes, although the cables appear very robust, much more so than the previous sync cables.
No remote cable solution (for now), but with the expected release of capture One Mobile (this Spring?), remote trigger can be accomplished without a remote cable.
Those for whom shift info in metadata is critical will miss that feature. However, that must be weighed against expanded shift capability.
You also lose the blue shutter button on the XT.
It's nice to have more options. XT is great because of complete integration and size/weight. Democratic X Shutter now provides 90+% of those features, but with more cameras of choice.
Steve Hendrix/CI
I totally agree with you on the last point - we live in great times for digital + tech cameras, and the more options, the better :)
- About the X Shutter's cable, for me the point is not the cable's robustness, is operational cumbersomeness; you'll need to attach / remove cables every time you change lenses, you set your camera up, you put your camera back in the bag, etc. This will make you lose time, as well as making the whole thing more difficult to operate when working in precarious balance, on unsteady ground, on a cliff edge, in the water, with bad weather, and so on.
- About Capture One Mobile vs cable release, I personally am really looking forward to C1 Mobile, and I personally would use that over a cable release; however, for many that's not the case, and generally speaking having the ability to use a cable vs an app would be useful for those situations where recharging your phones is difficult and you want to save phone battery, or when you simply run out of phone battery; on the camera side, even though I didn't test it, I am pretty sure that the IQ4's batteries will last much less if you use Wi-Fi, and probably dramatically so if you use it all the time;
- As you said, the shift conundrum (metadata vs more shift) will depend on each photographer's specific requirements; personally, for my work and for my lens lineup (23, 32, 50 and 90mm, all Rodenstock HR), had I choose to go for a 20mm-shifting camera I would only really use the extra shift on the 90mm, which is a lens I use less than others, so for me the XT's smaller size / lighter weight / better integration won against having the extra shift. Of course, for people using larger format lenses, lenses with larger images circles, longer lenses, and so on, and for people doing different genres of photography than what I do, that might be more critical;
- About the shutter, I believe that it is actually pretty useful to have it, makes it quicker to work in the field versus using the screen all the time.
As you perfectly put it, it's great to have many options, in fact the more the better. Camera choice is extremely personal, depending not only on what kind of photography one does, but on how much one values certain features over others, and so on. Choosing our gear is always a matter of compromises; there rarely is a perfect solution, one where you wouldn't change anything, add anything or remove anything from a camera. I try to be as analytical and purpose-oriented in my choices, and while I know perfectly well what I miss not having the extra shift, or not having the built-in tilt of the Arca-Swiss Rm3di, or the zoom lenses of smaller formats, or the longer lenses of smaller formats, and so on, for me and my work the XT's advantages win over other solutions' advantages - today, that is, since things change and there always are new options and new solutions to consider :) More generally, will I miss some shots by going with the XT versus other systems, smaller formats, and so on? Very likely so. On the other hand, going with the XT will make me get shots that i.e. my previous Hasselblads wouldn't let me get; most importantly, going with the XT will provide me with image quality that any of my previous cameras would only dream of (or any other system on the market today, for that matter). So, in the balance I am happy with the pros and cons of my system - other photographers' mileage might vary, of course :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
I don't see real advantage for the X-shutter.
How would it affect my architectural photography?
Am I missing something?
I shoot normally between 4s and 1/250s at F11.
The Copals are lightweight and precise enough, for me in any case.
The diaphragm of the X-Shutter still has only 5 blades!
Can somebody tell me why?
For me it's not important to see the aperture in the Exif.
I'm interested in the picture.
Regards,
Ben
The copal shutters are indeed "good enough" in a lot of cases if you are ok with the workflow (which may or may not include cables, waking up your back, etc, depending on the back in use). Frankly I think the main advantage of x-shutter vs copal shutter is speed and accessibility of the controls, which is important when using hoods/filters/gloves. My copal shutters can be a PITA to access sometimes, and having to open/close/cock the shutter multiple times per exposure when doing LCCs eats up time, although this is largely irrelevant for me now that I have a back with ES. Is it worth it to me to spend $5k per lens for these advantages? No, it's not, but I would like to upgrade my 32mm Rodie to x-shutter so I can stop treating it like a precious family heirloom.
When you start to look at acquiring new lenses or repairing your shutter is when the waters get muddy as you can no longer purchase a new lens with a copal shutter in it. So then it becomes a comparison of the x-shutter vs ES + aperture mount, which I think nets some clear advantages in favour of the x-shutter; flash sync, no rolling shutter artefacts, dark frame subtraction process automated, control from one place, etc. I can't tell you why it only has 5 blades, though!
With regards to seeing the aperture in the EXIF, at least on the IQ4-150, you can manually enter the aperture on the back if you choose, so it is in the EXIF. This works with any shutter/lens that can't communicate with the back...
-
The back doesn't shift, only the lens. Not good for stitching. Major design failure!
-
Are you referring to the XT? I can’t imagine that Phase 1 designed it not to allow the back to shift. All tech cameras for MF by Arca, Alpa, and Cambo allow for shifting the back. Cambo/Phase One partnered on the design and I would have assumed Cambo would have back shifting. In the pictures I have seen the shift indicator is on the XT frame. Not the lens mount.
If you want tilt or swing you have to use the Cambo T/S mount which is put on each lens. No tilt or swing on the XT camera body.
Paul C
-
The back doesn't shift, only the lens. Not good for stitching. Major design failure!
Are you referring to the XT? I can’t imagine that Phase 1 designed it not to allow the back to shift. All tech cameras for MF by Arca, Alpa, and Cambo allow for shifting the back. Cambo/Phase One partnered on the design and I would have assumed Cambo would have back shifting. In the pictures I have seen the shift indicator is on the XT frame. Not the lens mount.
...
On the Phase One XT, if that is what Peter is referring to, is the back that moves, not the lens. The lens / camera body stays still with shifting, and that is true both with shift and rise/fall. Hope this helps, best regards
Vieri
-
I guess I stand corrected, I was under the impression that the lens shifted not the back. Apologies...
-
This is by all means a great camera and camera concept. However there is absolutely nothing revolutionary here. For being revolutionary, new or non existing technologies should be applied. That’s not the case here as all applied technologies already exist for quite some time, as implemented by Sony, Nikon, Canon, and others. Scaling up and combining technologies between small and large format camera’s is also not revolutionary.
Therefore it’s an evolutionary camera.
Cheers,
Jaap.
-
This is by all means a great camera and camera concept. However there is absolutely nothing revolutionary here. For being revolutionary, new or non existing technologies should be applied. That’s not the case here as all applied technologies already exist for quite some time, as implemented by Sony, Nikon, Canon, and others. Scaling up and combining technologies between small and large format camera’s is also not revolutionary.
Therefore it’s an evolutionary camera.
Cheers,
Jaap.
Hello Jaap,
I am sorry but your definition of revolutionary is just that - yours :) Let's have a look at the dictionary's one, which you'll concede is a bit more generally accepted than your own:
revolutionary
adjective
adjective: revolutionary
1.
involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.
Nothing is said in the definition of revolutionary about "new or non existing technologies should be applied". Applying whatever technologies, existing or otherwise, in a way "causing dramatic change" would qualify. The Phase One XT applied existing technology to a family of product where no change was effectively applied for many decades, and in a way that nobody else though of - despite, as you pointed out, the technologies were in existence. That is indeed revolutionary.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Undeniably a good product.
But ... <revolutionary> is a word on <amazing> level, just ambassador marketing blabla, in my opinion counterproductive in the effort to achieve a positive promotional effect.
-
Undeniably a good product.
But ... <revolutionary> is a word on <amazing> level, just ambassador marketing blabla, in my opinion counterproductive in the effort to achieve a positive promotional effect.
I started using tech cameras with digital backs in 2010, when the technology was in its infancy. In 2013, I stopped using digital backs with tech cameras due to the technical limitations and cumbersome workflow and moved back to 35mm and medium format DSLR or mirrorless cameras. The Phase One IQ3 brought some improvements, but I still decided not to move back to digital backs & tech cameras - nothing had really changed in the technology to make me change my mind. In 2019, when the XT came out, I was immediately interested again: that camera, together with the IQ4, was finally breaking barriers and bringing tech cameras in the digital age. So, in late 2020, I moved to Phase One XT and IQ4, which I found revolutionary enough for me to move back to using tech cameras & digital backs in my workflow.
So, marketing blabla in my case has nothing to do with it - my history speaks for itself. I simply find the technology revolutionary in the world of tech cameras, and therefore that's how I describe it in my article. People who know me know that I am not ambassador of products that I don't use or that I don't believe in, despite all the offers I get; as well, people that know me know that I always write what I think, regardless of whether I am ambassador for a given brand or not. My intent is not to achieve any promotional effect, it is to share my thoughts about the gear I use, hoping my thoughts are of interest for other photographers.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Hi Vieri,
Thanks for replying. In the scope of product development (here you and I may see things differently!) there is no such thing as "causing dramatic change" when applying existing technologies. Re-using widely implemented design concepts from others even merely evolutionary.
Let me give you two examples:
- Going from film- or tube cameras to CCD cameras can be seen as revolutionary.
- Going from CCD to CMOS cameras can be seen as evolutionary.
Now that I think more about this great XT camera I cannot even declare it as being evolutionary (re-used technologies from others, nothing new from Phase-one).
Regards,
Jaap.
-
Hi Vieri,
Thanks for replying. In the scope of product development (here you and I may see things differently!) there is no such thing as "causing dramatic change" when applying existing technologies. Re-using widely implemented design concepts from others even merely evolutionary.
Let me give you two examples:
- Going from film- or tube cameras to CCD cameras can be seen as revolutionary.
- Going from CCD to CMOS cameras can be seen as evolutionary.
Now that I think more about this great XT camera I cannot even declare it as being evolutionary (re-used technologies from others, nothing new from Phase-one).
Regards,
Jaap.
Hello Jaap,
I am sorry you can't see how the Phase One XT dramatically changed the scene of tech cameras, and I am even more sorry to see how you cannot see how applying existing technologies to a different thing can cause dramatic changes to the field where such technologies are applied anew. It seems that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
A question for you: which tech camera with a digital back combination have you used, and when in time?
Best regards,
Vieri
-
I would argue that the XT is similar in positioning to the GFX100, the Nikon D1,...
It combines existing technologies in a product that significantly expands the ease of use/range of applications/... that can be achieved by the devices of a given segment.
And that’s great! Well done P1. It’s for sure a notable innovation and one important marker along the history of tech cameras.
Now, at the same time, the XT with it’s lack of tilt capability and the technical rationale thereof (impossible to make zero tilt accurate enough not to impact image quality when not tilting) does in fact kill the romantic vision of how a « large format » should be used. A subtle but very real, and dramatic, change in its own right. I know, there are now emerging workarounds but they clash with the intent and feel a bit like « do it at your own risk ». Do we want to invest this much and end up going against the intent of the designers?
Additionally, the XT lacks the focus stacking capability of the XF (and most other modern high res cameras besides the Sonys) meaning that it limits the range of achievable images to those with limited DoF or to manual DoF stacking which isn’t very reliable nor time efficient in the field. Of course this is intrinsic to the tech camera manual focusing nature... except that the XT also tells us we shouldn’t tilt...
So... ok... let’s not have everything in focus... a bit of bokeh won’t kill us... But then even if one accepts this limitation, it immediately raises the question of the look of bokeh... which, for leaf shutter lenses immediately raises the question of the look/number of blades of the shutter... and that doesn’t look too good, at least in theory.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I would argue that the XT is similar in positioning to the GFX100, the Nikon D1,...
It combines existing technologies in a product that significantly expands the ease of use/range of applications/... that can be achieved by the devices of a given segment.
And that’s great! Well done P1. It’s for sure a notable innovation and one important marker along the history of tech cameras.
Now, at the same time, the XT with it’s lack of tilt capability and the technical rationale thereof (impossible to make zero tilt accurate enough not to impact image quality when not tilting) does in fact kill the romantic vision of how a « large format » should be used. A subtle but very real, and dramatic, change in its own right. I know, there are now emerging workarounds but they clash with the intent and feel a bit like « do it at your own risk ». Do we want to invest this much and end up going against the intent of the designers?
Additionally, the XT lacks the focus stacking capability of the XF (and most other modern high res cameras besides the Sonys) meaning that it limits the range of achievable images to those with limited DoF or to manual DoF stacking which isn’t very reliable nor time efficient in the field. Of course this is intrinsic to the tech camera manual focusing nature... except that the XT also tells us we shouldn’t tilt...
So... ok... let’s not have everything in focus... a bit of bokeh won’t kill us... But then even if one accepts this limitation, it immediately raises the question of the look of bokeh... which, for leaf shutter lenses immediately raises the question of the look/number of blades of the shutter... and that doesn’t look too good, at least in theory.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hello Bernard,
you can use tilt via the Cambo mount, as you can do with all Cambo tech cameras. That will retain EXIF information except for shift / tilt degrees (for now, at least). I think that with such high resolution lenses and such high MP backs, the risk of losing IQ due to not having zero tilt as zero is real, even though perhaps not as dramatically impacting image quality all the time as one might think (it would depend on how off-zero it is, of course, combined with focal length, chosen aperture, subject distance, etc).
In practical use, the importance of tilt is very "genre dependent", so to speak. For the kind of landscape I do, the lack of tilt isn't a show stopper; for others, it might be. If it is, there are many other solutions out there in the tech camera world offering tilt (again, including Cambo's own mount), albeit without all the digital integration of the XT. Gear choice is always a matter of compromises, and is great to have all these choices - even in the tech camera world, traditionally an extremely slowly evolving field :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
The XT is a system in the right direction with many good features - but - as a professionel architectural photographer the 12mm of shift is a personal show-stopper.
It's sufficient for most interior images, but almost evenly insufficient for many exterior images.
I'm using Alpa's with all the modern Rodenstock's from 23mm and up - I'm using on almost every assignment shits of 18mm or more on maybe half of the images - the graphs may show that this is not possible, but it is in reality - yes, the corners of the 32 will start suffering from around 20mm of shift, but can still produce stunning images. And from the 40mm lens and up it's only when I'm shifting like 18-20mm up combined with large latteral movement that the lens is giving up in the far corner - if that's in the sky or in a low detail area it's seldom a problem.
So, give me a heads up when there is an XT with a propper amount of shift ;)
/adam
-
The XT is a system in the right direction with many good features - but - as a professionel architectural photographer the 12mm of shift is a personal show-stopper.
It's sufficient for most interior images, but almost evenly insufficient for many exterior images.
I'm using Alpa's with all the modern Rodenstock's from 23mm and up - I'm using on almost every assignment shits of 18mm or more on maybe half of the images - the graphs may show that this is not possible, but it is in reality - yes, the corners of the 32 will start suffering from around 20mm of shift, but can still produce stunning images. And from the 40mm lens and up it's only when I'm shifting like 18-20mm up combined with large latteral movement that the lens is giving up in the far corner - if that's in the sky or in a low detail area it's seldom a problem.
So, give me a heads up when there is an XT with a propper amount of shift ;)
/adam
Hello Adam,
are you using the Rodenstock 23mm with 18mm of shift? Which digital back are you using (sensor size)? Mine hardly get 2/3 mm with a IQ4.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
23mm will be limited to 5mm of horizontal shift in one direction on a full sized P1 sensor. After that you hit the IC indicator and hard vignetting due to 70mm IC.
But his points on the 32mm and 40mm are valid. Both lenses in good versions can shift well past 12mm in one direction. And the 50mm and 70mm Rodenstock should do the same. 60mm Schneider can get 20mm to 22mm. And 90mm Rodenstock HR-SW 25mm of shift.
This is shift in one direction.
As pointed out tilt can be obtained with a Cambo T/S mount to each lens which just adds cost.
My point is P1 limited themselves to one company, Cambo. They had a chance to take design ideas from many companies and make a truly revolutionary camera. They didn’t.
X shutter is just one part of the camera. Yes it’s the best tech camera shutter that’s been developed and greatly exceeds the Rodenstock, Sinar and Arca. But the shutter is just one aspect of the total solution.
Paul C
-
Hello Jaap,
I am sorry you can't see how the Phase One XT dramatically changed the scene of tech cameras, and I am even more sorry to see how you cannot see how applying existing technologies to a different thing can cause dramatic changes to the field where such technologies are applied anew. It seems that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
A question for you: which tech camera with a digital back combination have you used, and when in time?
Best regards,
Vieri
Hi Vieri,
Interesting that you ask about ‘tech cameras’. In my book a tech camera is able to provide SUFFICIENT shift as well as tilt. Something that the P1 XT is incapable of.
What I used? A Mamiya RZ pro IID with a P1 back combined with a bunch of APO and ULD glass. In several aspects the RZ provides more functionality (focusing, metering, cable-less electronic connection between leaf shutter and the back, limited T/S functionality, to name a few) than the P1 XT.
Let me repeat by saying that I find the XT a great camera, however neither revolutionary nor evolutionary.
Regards,
Jaap.
-
23mm will be limited to 5mm of horizontal shift in one direction on a full sized P1 sensor. After that you hit the IC indicator and hard vignetting due to 70mm IC.
But his points on the 32mm and 40mm are valid. Both lenses in good versions can shift well past 12mm in one direction. And the 50mm and 70mm Rodenstock should do the same. 60mm Schneider can get 20mm to 22mm. And 90mm Rodenstock HR-SW 25mm of shift.
This is shift in one direction.
As pointed out tilt can be obtained with a Cambo T/S mount to each lens which just adds cost.
My point is P1 limited themselves to one company, Cambo. They had a chance to take design ideas from many companies and make a truly revolutionary camera. They didn’t.
X shutter is just one part of the camera. Yes it’s the best tech camera shutter that’s been developed and greatly exceeds the Rodenstock, Sinar and Arca. But the shutter is just one aspect of the total solution.
Paul C
Hello Paul,
please see the graphics in my review here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html (https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html)
On a full-frame P1 sensor, the 23mm is limited to 2/3mm in each direction, 5/6 mm total. Lenses with a 90mm image circle will shift 13mm / 16mm, not a dramatic difference over the 12mm the XT provides. The only lenses where there is a dramatic difference are the 70mm and 90mm Rodenstock. This is, of course, if you consider Rodenstock HR lenses and a full-frame P1 sensor. Schneider lenses are discontinued, and due to their design have other limitations; non-HR Rodenstock lenses, while offering a larger image circle, do not perform as well on the modern, high-resolution digital back.
Gear choice is always a matter of compromises, but if you want the best image quality available (i.e., IQ4 backs and Rodenstock HR lenses), then there isn't much advantage in having over 12mm of shift.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Hi Vieri,
Interesting that you ask about ‘tech cameras’. In my book a tech camera is able to provide SUFFICIENT shift as well as tilt. Something that the P1 XT is incapable of.
What I used? A Mamiya RZ pro IID with a P1 back combined with a bunch of APO and ULD glass. In several aspects the RZ provides more functionality (focusing, metering, cable-less electronic connection between leaf shutter and the back, limited T/S functionality, to name a few) than the P1 XT.
Let me repeat by saying that I find the XT a great camera, however neither revolutionary nor evolutionary.
Regards,
Jaap.
Hello Jaap,
as I said, we have to agree to disagree. Your definition of a tech camera as "a tech camera is able to provide SUFFICIENT shift as well as tilt", no matter how much you capitalise it, is totally arbitrary: for me, 12mm shift are more than enough, and I don't need tilt for my work. Again, your definition of something is, well, just that - yours. I would never think that what applies to me holds any universal value; it's always good to remember that there are so many different photographers out there, doing different kind of photography with different equipment, whose requirement from a field tech camera are totally different than yours.
Your non-existent experience with technical camera before the XT and with the XT itself is significant in helping you not seeing how revolutionary the camera is. Your statements that "For being revolutionary, new or non existing technologies should be applied" and "there is no such thing as "causing dramatic change" when applying existing technologies" is something, well, kind of bizarre :) According to your definition, there would be an extremely limited number of revolutionary products - in fact, that would be a quantity dangerously tending to zero. It seems that you are clutching at straws to win an argument here, so once more, let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
your quote below, taken from the stock Apple dictionary, omits the exemplar:
" involving or causing a complete or dramatic change: a revolutionary new drug"
Is the XT as revolutionary as a new drug (eg a Covid-19 vaccine) ?
I think not.
Your review may not have set a new standard in objectivity but certainly useful, if for nothing else, than the posted rationales/critiques it has engendered in this thread.
I am sorry but your definition of revolutionary is just that - yours :) Let's have a look at the dictionary's one, which you'll concede is a bit more generally accepted than your own:
revolutionary
adjective
adjective: revolutionary
1.
involving or causing a complete or dramatic change.
Nothing is said in the definition of revolutionary about "new or non existing technologies should be applied".
-
your quote below, taken from the stock Apple dictionary, omits the exemplar:
" involving or causing a complete or dramatic change: a revolutionary new drug"
Is the XT as revolutionary as a new drug (eg a Covid-19 vaccine) ?
I think not.
Your review may not have set a new standard in objectivity but certainly useful, if for nothing else, than the posted rationales/critiques it has engendered in this thread.
Manoli,
the correctness of the use of an adjective must obviously be considered in relevance to the field it has been applied to. Using the example you quoted would have been disingenuous, in that there is no new camera that could ever be considered a revolutionary as a new Covid-19 vaccine - especially these days. Incidentally, since no new technology has been used to create any of the Covid-19 vaccines, our friend Jaap would not consider any of these revolutionary either :)
It is my belief that, when it comes to field tech cameras, the Phase One XT is indeed a revolutionary product; revolutionary since it causes a dramatic change in the way tech cameras operated until the advent of the XT. That's my opinion, based on over a decade of familiarity with tech cameras and medium format. Of course yours, and the opinion of others, can differ. That doesn't mean I am attacking the level of objectiveness of people expressing opinions differing from mine :)
On a more general note, I find it interesting how people who have worked - or are currently working - with a tech camera might critique things in the XT such as the amount of shift, or the lack of tilt, or the price; however, they all agree about the relevance of the XT (and X Shutter) as a chasm in the development of how tech cameras operate. On the other hand, it seems that people who never handled a tech camera in their life fail to see how revolutionary it is - perhaps because the XT brings to the tech camera world technologies that they are very used to have in their cameras, and that they find so "norma'" that they don't see how important they actually are. Especially so when applied to tech cameras, which operation is extremely cumbersome in comparison.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Two Linhoffs, three Sinars including an 8X10, a Speed graphic and a Cambo. Two Kodak digital backs, three Leaf backs and one Phase 1 back. Forty years of working with Technical cameras. I don't see a revolution and I would have to be generous to claim I even see a tech camera. I have owned DSLR lenses with tilt and SHIFT that made them more technical cameras than this. I don't even know what to make of shift on this camera, I always found tilts far more useful in my work and I see very little need for metadata on the amount of shift. I always just used shift for precise framing quite honestly. Sometimes a little rising front for architecture but you sure run out of sharp image quickly with most lenses.
Anyway I have expressed my opinion and have no desire to enter a debate on it. Its a forum so people say their piece and others can decide if the info is useful to them or not. I keep looking at MFDB in case I want to get back into it but so far nothing tempts me.
Yes I did read the entire review.
-
Hello Veri
You are quoting the Rodenstock specs on shift. I am quoting actual usage. I know for a fact the 32mm can easily shift to 15mm in one direction. The max for a Arca RM3DI unless the camera is rotated. On a Cambo any Cambo you can shift to 20mm. I have used 2 32mm HR-W lenses. Mine is not as good as some of the others. A lens I used in 2019 from a different photographer easily made 18mm of shift. The 40mm which is not offered in X shutter strangely can make 20mm but since it’s not X capable I guess it’s moot to the discussion.
I also disagree on your 23mm observations again based on my usage of both the 23mm 28mm and 35mm HR lenses all with pink bands. On the standard full frame sensor size 54x44 5mm is the limit one direction. You start to see the black hard vignetting past 5mm. You can also pick up a white band prior to the hard vignetting which in certain situations can make the 5mm less usable.
You also over look the 90mm HR-SW and 70mm HR-W and 138mm. All of these can easily shift past 12mm in one direction due to image circle. I own the 90mm and know how far it can shift.
Shift is a huge advantage for a photographer working for panoramic shots or architectural shots vs having to pan the camera and worry about nodal point issues.
I also question your point on the 60mm Schneider or 120mm Schneider. I know of no issues these lenses have in fact they are superior in regards to distortion as they are symmetrical designs not retrofocus.
It’s a vastly expensive platform which only offers minimal shift and no tilt without adding a T/S adapter to each lens. No viewfinder so framing must be done via liveview and attempting to dial in critical focus handheld with a P1 back and live view without being on a tripod is next to impossible. I also question the hand holding capabilities but it appears that in certain situations with the X shutter it can be as it can’t be done with the ES only.
Personally I would rather Phase One focus more on issues that still plague the IQ4 now over 2 years since announcing it.
Paul C
-
Hello Veri
You are quoting the Rodenstock specs on shift. I am quoting actual usage. I know for a fact the 32mm can easily shift to 15mm in one direction. The max for a Arca RM3DI unless the camera is rotated. On a Cambo any Cambo you can shift to 20mm. I have used 2 32mm HR-W lenses. Mine is not as good as some of the others. A lens I used in 2019 from a different photographer easily made 18mm of shift. The 40mm which is not offered in X shutter strangely can make 20mm but since it’s not X capable I guess it’s moot to the discussion.
I also disagree on your 23mm observations again based on my usage of both the 23mm 28mm and 35mm HR lenses all with pink bands. On the standard full frame sensor size 54x44 5mm is the limit one direction. You start to see the black hard vignetting past 5mm. You can also pick up a white band prior to the hard vignetting which in certain situations can make the 5mm less usable.
You also over look the 90mm HR-SW and 70mm HR-W and 138mm. All of these can easily shift past 12mm in one direction due to image circle. I own the 90mm and know how far it can shift.
Shift is a huge advantage for a photographer working for panoramic shots or architectural shots vs having to pan the camera and worry about nodal point issues.
I also question your point on the 60mm Schneider or 120mm Schneider. I know of no issues these lenses have in fact they are superior in regards to distortion as they are symmetrical designs not retrofocus.
It’s a vastly expensive platform which only offers minimal shift and no tilt without adding a T/S adapter to each lens. No viewfinder so framing must be done via liveview and attempting to dial in critical focus handheld with a P1 back and live view without being on a tripod is next to impossible. I also question the hand holding capabilities but it appears that in certain situations with the X shutter it can be as it can’t be done with the ES only.
Personally I would rather Phase One focus more on issues that still plague the IQ4 now over 2 years since announcing it.
Paul C
Hello Paul,
well, my actual usage data differs from yours - perhaps we have different versions of the Rodenstock lenses. I own the 23, 32, 50 and 90mm, and mine are obviously the ones which come with the XT, which might make a difference (not sure about that), but they all behave according to Rodenstock published specs as one would expect.
About the 70 and 90mm, I didn't overlook them at all, in fact they are clearly mentioned in my review as the only two lenses where having more shift than the 12mm offered by the Phase One XT would truly make a difference.
About handholding, I wouldn't use any tech camera for handholding work anyway, for me they are made to work on a tripod. However, were I be forced to use any of them handheld, the XT would rate higher than other alternatives in my book - but again, no tech camera would be my first choice for handheld use.
Hope this helps clarifying things! :) Have a great day, best regards
Vieri
-
Hello Adam,
are you using the Rodenstock 23mm with 18mm of shift? Which digital back are you using (sensor size)? Mine hardly get 2/3 mm with a IQ4.
Best regards,
Vieri
Sorry for not being clear - I can also only squish 3-4mm of shift out of the 23mm - I referred to the 32mm and up, when talking about large shift amounts
/adam
-
Gentlemen,
as far as I am concerned, this thread has run its course. I wrote an article expressing my opinions about the Phase One XT, hoping that it'd be useful for the community, and I'd like to thank everyone who read the article and who contributed to the thread so far, both people agreeing with my assessment of the camera and people disagreeing with it.
As always, gear choice is very personal and depends on so many different things that it is just normal that different people have different requirements and, therefore, end up choosing different equipment. My choices are the result of my experience, are tuned to my requirements, and do work for me and my work; of course, they might not work for you. While I am always open to positive and constructive discussion, I believe that in this thread we are going well past that and therefore I feel I have nothing more to contribute to it. I guess that we'll just have to agree to disagree and move on - there are too many photograph are out there waiting to be made, and I'd rather be out there doing that, than losing time fighting over semantics and gear :)
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Hello Paul,
please see the graphics in my review here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html (https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2021/02/simply-revolutionary-phase-one-xt-review.html)
On a full-frame P1 sensor, the 23mm is limited to 2/3mm in each direction, 5/6 mm total. Lenses with a 90mm image circle will shift 13mm / 16mm, not a dramatic difference over the 12mm the XT provides. The only lenses where there is a dramatic difference are the 70mm and 90mm Rodenstock. This is, of course, if you consider Rodenstock HR lenses and a full-frame P1 sensor. Schneider lenses are discontinued, and due to their design have other limitations; non-HR Rodenstock lenses, while offering a larger image circle, do not perform as well on the modern, high-resolution digital back.
Gear choice is always a matter of compromises, but if you want the best image quality available (i.e., IQ4 backs and Rodenstock HR lenses), then there isn't much advantage in having over 12mm of shift.
Best regards,
Vieri
Dear Vieri - again- you have quit more than 16mm of shift - in real life use - with Rodenstock 32mm and up.
This is with an IQ 3 trichromatic on various Alpa's
So yes, there is a very useful difference from the 12mm that the XT provides, at least for an architectural photographer.
very best,
adam
-
If this thread is representative of the tech camera market, my objective take away is:
Positive
- some of the innovations introduced by the XT are considered useful (shutter control from back, larger range of shutter speed)
-> they do expand the range of application achievable by a tech camera, I would say bringing them closer to the way non tech camera with a manual focus lens can be used. This probably mean that a very high level of image quality in a reasonably light package is becoming achievable.
Negative
- the XT + lenses is perceived as being too expensive, in particular in relationship to the capabilities
- the capabilities of the XT are perceived as not being sufficient compared to existing tech cameras (not enough shift range, lack of tilt)
- some of the innovations introduced by the XT are considered no too useful (shift metadata)
- some aspects of the current implementation raise concerns (low number of shutter blades resulting from its original design for aerial photography where bokeh is irrelevant)
-> these limitations probably reduce the usefulness of the XT for the traditional applications in which tech cameras are used.
Obviously this assessment differs depending on the usage and some of it may result from partial understanding of the actual capabilities.
I am all for innovation and, as a satisfied user, only wish the best to Phaseone, but this assessment probably means that they have to get back to the drawing board and improve some of the aspects of the initial XT design.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bravo Bernard.
I food summary I believe, skilfully extracted from the thread.
-
If this thread is representative of the tech camera market, my objective take away is:
Positive
- some of the innovations introduced by the XT are considered useful (shutter control from back, larger range of shutter speed)
-> they do expand the range of application achievable by a tech camera, I would say bringing them closer to the way non tech camera with a manual focus lens can be used. This probably mean that a very high level of image quality in a reasonably light package is becoming achievable.
Negative
- the XT + lenses is perceived as being too expensive, in particular in relationship to the capabilities
- the capabilities of the XT are perceived as not being sufficient compared to existing tech cameras (not enough shift range, lack of tilt)
- some of the innovations introduced by the XT are considered no too useful (shift metadata)
- some aspects of the current implementation raise concerns (low number of shutter blades resulting from its original design for aerial photography where bokeh is irrelevant)
-> these limitations probably reduce the usefulness of the XT for the traditional applications in which tech cameras are used.
Obviously this assessment differs depending on the usage and some of it may result from partial understanding of the actual capabilities.
I am all for innovation and, as a satisfied user, only wish the best to Phaseone, but this assessment probably means that they have to get back to the drawing board and improve some of the aspects of the initial XT design.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hello Bernard,
thank you for the summary. Just a couple of considerations about your negative column.
1. Metadata. On another forum that shall remain unnamed but where medium format and tech camera users have a much stronger presence than here, a large number of users are being very vocal asking for the possibility to add shift metadata directly on the back when using non-XT tech cameras, and they have been doing so for a long time. Therefore, I believe you might want to reassess this:
- some of the innovations introduced by the XT are considered no too useful (shift metadata)
since I believe that this is something that most users value and would love to have on their backs even if done manually and without the XT.
2. Number of shutter blades. As you probably know, Copal shutters had 5 or 7 blades as well, so the X Shutter is not that different from what camera users have been used to. Generally speaking, I am not really sure that bokeh is high on the priority list of tech camera users, or that it should reasonably be when using a tech camera. The number of shutter blades aside, lenses made for tech cameras are made, by design, not to be used wide open; wide-open is normally an aperture used just to frame and, especially, focus, not to exploit bokeh capabilities (there is a lot of literature about that, even online, which you can easily find if interested). Therefore, I believe you might want to reassess this as well:
- some aspects of the current implementation raise concerns (low number of shutter blades resulting from its original design for aerial photography where bokeh is irrelevant)
3. Price. Price depends first of all on the depth of one's pocket: what is expensive for me, might be pocket change for someone else. That said, prices of tech cameras and digital backs have always been very high; that's kinda of part of the game. For comparison, using US prices and considering field tech cameras with no bellows and that at least shift in two directions (to keep things comparable with the XT), here's a compendium of the alternatives, with indication of shift, tilt, size, weight and price (I added back adapter's price to the other cameras, since you don't have to buy one when you purchase the XT, but not it's weight which I couldn't find):
- Phase One XT, 24/24mm shift, no tilt; size: 160 x 148 mm; weight: 700 gr; price: 6,990 US;
- Alpa 12 Max, 43/36mm shift, no tilt; size: 205 x 177 mm; weight: 1.200 gr; price: 7,265 US + back adapter 1,380 US = 8,645 US
- Alpa 12 Plus, 40/40mm shift, no tilt; size: 184 x 184 mm; weight: 1.025 gr; price: 8,475 US + back adapter 1,380 US = 9,855 US
- Arca-Swiss Rm3di, 30/50mm shift; 5' tilt; size: 200 x 195 mm; weight: 1.050 gr; price: 5.195 EURO + back adapter 696 EURO = 5,891 EURO, ± 7,090 US
- Arca-Swiss Rl3di, 40/60mm shift; 5' tilt; size: 230 x 225 mm; weight: 1.500 gr; price: 6.115 EURO + back adapter 696 EURO = 6,811 EURO, ± 8,196 US
- Cambo WRS-5000, 45/40mm shift, no tilt; size: 190 x 175 mm; weight: 1.200 gr; price: 4,995 US + back adapter 519 US = 5,514 US
- Cambo WRS-1600, 40/40mm shift, no tilt; size: 180 x 160 mm; weight: 920 gr; price: 3,599 US + back adapter 519 US = 4,118 US
- Cambo WRS-1250, 40/40mm shift, no tilt; size: 178 x 165 mm; weight: 1.000 gr; price: 3,750 US + back adapter 519 US = 4,269 US
Definitely, Cambo is the best bang for the buck, and Alpa is definitely the most expensive; Arca-Swiss and Phase One XT are in the middle of the pack, as far as price, with Arca-Swiss being slightly more expensive. Personally, while definitely price is a factor when choosing a camera, there are other factors that are more important for me, everything else being equal (or close).
---
In conclusion, everyone has their own priorities and chooses the gear that best work for them. I put together an article expanding on how to go about choosing the best equipment for you, offering a method and my own example of implementation, which you can find it here: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2020/12/choosing-the-best-camera-system-for-landscape-photography.html (https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2020/12/choosing-the-best-camera-system-for-landscape-photography.html).
I.e., since I hike a lot, size and weight are very important for me. Being able to pack the camera "ready to go" is also important, since I'd rather not fiddle with putting the whole rig together in bad weather, or with cold hands, or with gloves, or on unstable ground, and so on. For the same reason, I would not choose a tech camera forcing me to remove the back to switch between portrait and landscape orientation, which the XT can do at a flick of a lock, as can the Cambo WRS-1600 and the Arca-Swiss (with an extra adapter = more bulk, weight and more $). The XT is much smaller than all the alternatives, and that allows me to pack the camera with the back & one lens mounted in my f-stop Tilopa, leaving room for 3 more lenses, my filter bag, accessories etc (I am using a large ICU). More, the camera is also much lighter that any of the alternatives, which helps when hiking long distances. In exchange for that, I lose a bit of shift, and (if I went the Arca-Swiss route, tilt). For me, it's a good compromise, considering that I get the digital integration as well, and that I don't need more shift anyway. For others, I understand it might not be.
If I didn't go the XT route, my next choice would be the Arca-Swiss Rm3di: it's bigger and heavier, but I'd save some weight on the lens side, since I wouldn't need a focus helicoid in each lens (focus is built-in the camera body). I would lose part of the digital integration, if I went for the X Shutter (when it will be available for Arca-Swiss, or if I could have A-S modify my existing lenses), or all of it if I went for Rodenstock-aperture lenses, but I'd gain a bit of extra shift capability (for my longer lenses), and I'd gain tilt for those situation when I'd need it. That would be my next compromise of choice.
The Cambo WRS-1600 would be my third alternative: I would keep part of the digital integration, could use my current lenses without modification, gain some shift in exchange for having to carry more bulk and weight. And so on :)
Hope this helps, best regards
Vieri
-
Personally i have not much to complain about technical performance of even 35mm digital; they already have enough information to tell my story.
But already in 2006 i wished to have the amount of shift in the metadata when using my PCE nikkor lenses.
Metadata about the amount of shift can be used to eliminate lens-distortion ( and lenscast/vignetting) in a proper way.
So i agree that is sensible information for the people that are so serious about technical quality that they buy this camera; when straight lines have to be straight.
for instance for architecture.
BTW i read a lot about how heavy cameras are; 100gram more seems to be too much already.
Never has been my concern, especially now. Ansel Adams would laugh.
Surely the tripod will be still heavy with these 150MP camera's
-
I'm not going to get too hung up on the semantics where the XT is in evolutionary scale of photography. It's different from other solutions just like my Sonys are different from my Phase backs.
I think the workflow is where the biggest change is.
On a tech cam (or view camera): Go to the front of the camera, open the shutter, open the aperture. Go to the back of the camera, compose, focus. Go to the front of the camera, close shutter, close aperture, shoot. Dig out LLC, shoot again. Check results and repeat. I've been shooting for over 30 years and I can get this down to about 60 seconds
On the XT: Go to the back of the camera, hit live view, compose, focus and shoot. This takes 5 or 6 seconds. It's even faster when we are shooting tethered after the camera is set. In that scenario we shoot directly from the laptop and never touch the camera after it's setup.
I know this is not a scientific measurement of time but it really is ten times faster to work with an XT than a tech cam. It's much closer to working with a mirrorless small format camera. I'd rather spend more time creating images than more time messing about with my camera.
Peace,
Weldon
-
.....
2. Number of shutter blades. As you probably know, Copal shutters had 5 or 7 blades as well, so the X Shutter is not that different from what camera users have been used to. Generally speaking, I am not really sure that bokeh is high on the priority list of tech camera users, or that it should reasonably be when using a tech camera. The number of shutter blades aside, lenses made for tech cameras are made, by design, not to be used wide open; wide-open is normally an aperture used just to frame and, especially, focus, not to exploit bokeh capabilities (there is a lot of literature about that, even online, which you can easily find if interested). Therefore, I believe you might want to reassess this as well:
- some aspects of the current implementation raise concerns (low number of shutter blades resulting from its original design for aerial photography where bokeh is irrelevant)
...
Hope this helps, best regards
Vieri
For me bokeh is on the high priority list for my tech camera, for every camera.
I don't understand why a new designed and very expensive shutter has only 5 blades.
I changed the shutter of my Rodenstock 90mm from Copal (5 blades) to Compur (9 blades).
The turnable back of the XT is really a big advantage.
Unfortunately "the handmade ebony handle" of the XT is a clear statement about luxury and nature.
An interesting statement for landscape photography...
Regards,
Ben
-
On the XT: Go to the back of the camera, hit live view, compose, focus and shoot. This takes 5 or 6 seconds. It's even faster when we are shooting tethered after the camera is set. In that scenario we shoot directly from the laptop and never touch the camera after it's setup.
...
Peace,
Weldon
What you describe above is exactly the workflow for anyone with a back that has good live view and an ES; only need to touch the camera for movements and aperture. With one caveat of course, and it’s a big one... is that’s ES only so not going to work for anything with motion or flash. That is where the XT (or just x-shutter for non-XT users) really shines IMHO.
-
Vieri,
I appreciate your thoughtful reviews and information- always very thorough. I have the Cambo WRS 1600 currently with T/S lenses, so I am satisfied with my setup, but still like the smaller profile and weight savings of the XT camera. It has a lot of appeal in its simplicity of use. If you do happen to use the XT camera with older Cambo mount Rodenstock lenses reconfigured for the XT camera, let us know how that works out.
-
Vieri,
I appreciate your thoughtful reviews and information- always very thorough. I have the Cambo WRS 1600 currently with T/S lenses, so I am satisfied with my setup, but still like the smaller profile and weight savings of the XT camera. It has a lot of appeal in its simplicity of use. If you do happen to use the XT camera with older Cambo mount Rodenstock lenses reconfigured for the XT camera, let us know how that works out.
Thank you for your comment and kind words, glad you found the review useful. I don't have any older Cambo mounted Rodenstock, but as far as I know since older Cambo mounts don't have electronic contacts, on the XT they would work exactly as they do on your Cambo. Moving to the XT, you would get a smaller package, with less shift; tilt would obviously the same; and you would open your kit to adding some XT Rodenstock lenses in the future, if that is of interest to you. If you don't need the smaller size & weight, perhaps you could add some of the XT benefits by updating your lenses to an X Shutter, if you haven't done that already, that is.
Hope this helps! Best regards,
Vieri
-
Certainly it makes it less revolutionary if it is economically outside the range of most people. To be revolutionary it needs to make a sudden and dramatic impact. As fascinating as this tech is it will have very little impact on photography or photographers.
The technology can be revolutionary among engineers that design this kind of equipment without having much immediate impact on the end user. For instance, it may be that the "revolutionary" technology mentioned in Vieri's review is noticed by engineers of lower priced systems and they incorporate it into their more affordable options. You might not see them on the market for a few years, but might not have seen them at all if not for Phase One's innovation.
-
The technology can be revolutionary among engineers that design this kind of equipment without having much immediate impact on the end user. For instance, it may be that the "revolutionary" technology mentioned in Vieri's review is noticed by engineers of lower priced systems and they incorporate it into their more affordable options. You might not see them on the market for a few years, but might not have seen them at all if not for Phase One's innovation.
I guess the only aspect that’s not already done by smaller systems is the capturing of tilt/shift amounts/orientation that may be useful for automated lens correction.
But the very amount of possible combinations makes this unrealistic. Besides it would only work in the manufacturer’s software. Nikon being the only company besides p1 that is still trying to deliver something decent (and btw with pretty good success with their latest attempt).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I guess the only aspect that’s not already done by smaller systems is the capturing of tilt/shift amounts/orientation that may be useful for automated lens correction.
The Hasselblad HTS records tilt/shift info.
-
The Hasselblad HTS records tilt/shift info.
I know, I used to use one.
I was referring to Nikon/Canon next gen T/S lenses.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi Vieri,
I'm late to the party but thank you for putting the effort into the XT review! There's no perfect solution that suits everybody (as with anything in life), but it's very helpful to have an in-depth assessment such as yours, even if some bias.
Your points are well taken regarding range of movements versus IQ. I do wish the XT had more range, giving the photographer more control over composition vs IQ tradeoff. I often take just a 50 (70 on the IQ4) for landscape work and stitch for wide compositions, so this is case where having more shift would be helpful IMO. Having the single lens lightens the load and eliminates lens changes in the field, and fits nicely with XT's other benefits of small size and integration.
As an aside, reading through this thread was very frustrating with all the debating over the definition of "revolutionary". It made for very low signal-to-noise ration reading.
Anyway, thanks again for the write-up. Much appreciated!
-Roland.
-
Hi Vieri,
I'm late to the party but thank you for putting the effort into the XT review! There's no perfect solution that suits everybody (as with anything in life), but it's very helpful to have an in-depth assessment such as yours, even if some bias.
Your points are well taken regarding range of movements versus IQ. I do wish the XT had more range, giving the photographer more control over composition vs IQ tradeoff. I often take just a 50 (70 on the IQ4) for landscape work and stitch for wide compositions, so this is case where having more shift would be helpful IMO. Having the single lens lightens the load and eliminates lens changes in the field, and fits nicely with XT's other benefits of small size and integration.
As an aside, reading through this thread was very frustrating with all the debating over the definition of "revolutionary". It made for very low signal-to-noise ration reading.
Anyway, thanks again for the write-up. Much appreciated!
-Roland.
Hi Roland,
thank you for your comment, glad you enjoyed the review.
About your point, the shift limitation is the result of a design compromise between size, weight and features; someone favours smaller & lighter, somebody else extra shift. Same for the absence of tilt.
Plus, considering that the 70mm is one of the few lenses (with the 90, 120 and 138mm) where having more than 12mm of stitch would be truly impactful anyway, and that - in use - stitching vs using a wider lens is not a universally viable solution (if you do long exposures of the sky with moving clouds, or light trails of moving cars, etc you might find it not always possible to stitch perfectly...), then one can see the rationale behind Phase's decision to keep size and weight smaller. That, of course, doesn't mean that we necessarily agree with their choice :)
After four months of daily use, rather than the extra shift what I found I'd really would love to have is tilt; therefore, I ordered an Arca-Swiss Rm3di with 3 lenses to complement my XT. Will report about it in 2022.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Plus, considering that the 70mm is one of the few lenses (with the 90, 120 and 138mm) where having more than 12mm of stitch would be truly impactful anyway, and that - in use - stitching vs using a wider lens is not a universally viable solution (if you do long exposures of the sky with moving clouds, or light trails of moving cars, etc you might find it not always possible to stitch perfectly...), then one can see the rationale behind Phase's decision to keep size and weight smaller. That, of course, doesn't mean that we necessarily agree with their choice :)
Best regards,
Vieri
You could add the 50 HR-W (and the 180 HR-S) to this lineup of lenses that can accommodate substantially more than 12mm shift.
https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/ (https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/)
So I see it more as there are only 2 lenses (23 HR-S and 32 HR-W) that cannot take advantage of + 12mm shift, while all the other lenses in the lineup (6 lenses) can take advantage of + 12mm shift. But to the principle point, Phase One set out to design a very small and compact, fully integrated shifting tech camera, and they succeeded. This has been a useful addition to the marketplace when it comes to technical camera choices and options.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
You could add the 50 HR-W (and the 180 HR-S) to this lineup of lenses that can accommodate substantially more than 12mm shift.
https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/ (https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/)
So I see it more as there are only 2 lenses (23 HR-S and 32 HR-W) that cannot take advantage of + 12mm shift, while all the other lenses in the lineup (6 lenses) can take advantage of + 12mm shift. But to the principle point, Phase One set out to design a very small and compact, fully integrated shifting tech camera, and they succeeded. This has been a useful addition to the marketplace when it comes to technical camera choices and options.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix/CI
Hey Steve,
it's not clear to me why you would state that the 32mm "cannot take advantage of +12mm shift", while stating that the 50mm, with the exact same image circle, "can accommodate substantially more than 12mm shift". Also, it's not clear to me how you would consider the 180mm, which offers just 9 | 8 mm, able to "accommodate substantially more than 12mm shift".
More, I think we'll have to agree to disagree in regards of what "substantial amounts of shift" means. Let's have a look at the number. On a 50x44mm sensor, as per Rodenstock's own data (v = vertical, h = horizontal):
XT lenses:
23mm -> 2mm v | 2mm h
32mm -> 16mm v | 13mm h
50mm -> 16mm v | 13mm h
70mm -> 22mm v | 19mm v
90mm -> 33mm v | 29mm h
All other Rodenstock currently available lenses:
35mm -> 2mm v | 2mm h
40mm -> 16mm v | 13mm h
100mm -> 2mm v | 2mm h
120mm -> 50mm v | 45mm h
138mm -> 24mm v | 24mm h
180mm -> 9mm v | 8mm h
So, summing things up, out of 11 Rodenstock lenses:
- 4 lenses (23mm, 35mm, 100mm and 180mm) allow for way less shift than the 12mm | 12mm the XT offers;
- 3 lenses (32mm, 40mm and 50mm) allow for a very minor difference in shift than the XT offers (only 4mm), if used in portrait orientation, and no significant advantage if used in landscape orientation;
- 4 lenses (90mm, 120mm and 138mm) would definitely benefit from more shift than what the XT offers.
Hope this helps clarifying things for everyone. Best regards,
Vieri
-
Hey Steve,
it's not clear to me why you would state that the 32mm "cannot take advantage of +12mm shift", while stating that the 50mm, with the exact same image circle, "can accommodate substantially more than 12mm shift". Also, it's not clear to me how you would consider the 180mm, which offers just 9 | 8 mm, able to "accommodate substantially more than 12mm shift".
More, I think we'll have to agree to disagree in regards of what "substantial amounts of shift" means. Let's have a look at the number. On a 50x44mm sensor, as per Rodenstock's own data (v = vertical, h = horizontal):
XT lenses:
23mm -> 2mm v | 2mm h
32mm -> 16mm v | 13mm h
50mm -> 16mm v | 13mm h
70mm -> 22mm v | 19mm v
90mm -> 33mm v | 29mm h
All other Rodenstock currently available lenses:
35mm -> 2mm v | 2mm h
40mm -> 16mm v | 13mm h
100mm -> 2mm v | 2mm h
120mm -> 50mm v | 45mm h
138mm -> 24mm v | 24mm h
180mm -> 9mm v | 8mm h
So, summing things up, out of 11 Rodenstock lenses:
- 4 lenses (23mm, 35mm, 100mm and 180mm) allow for way less shift than the 12mm | 12mm the XT offers;
- 3 lenses (32mm, 40mm and 50mm) allow for a very minor difference in shift than the XT offers (only 4mm), if used in portrait orientation, and no significant advantage if used in landscape orientation;
- 4 lenses (90mm, 120mm and 138mm) would definitely benefit from more shift than what the XT offers.
Hope this helps clarifying things for everyone. Best regards,
Vieri
Hi Vieri -
I consider the 32HR to be roughly in the 12mm range as a max (season to taste).
But the 50HR and the 180HR can shift much, much more. There is more to it than just the stated image circle. I cannot explain technically why this is possible (and I should be able to do so, so I will get an explanation). But we know factually, since we have shot with and tested all these lenses on all sorts of different cameras and with different sensor sizes that the specs from Rodenstock are not correct. In fact, gauging by Rodenstock's numbers it almost looks like they just took the same image circle and assumed the same shift parameters in some cases, and this is most definitely not the case in real world use.
The 50 HR-W can shift almost twice the amount of the 32 HR-W. And the 180 HR-S is a lens I ignored for years because of the stated 80mm image circle, which seemed very restrictive. And yet, when the IQ4 150 came out, I thought why not try it and see how it does on the best sensor for shifting, and found that I could shift 20mm horizontal + 20mm vertical shift - combined - with this lens on an IQ4 150. And the results are spectacular - not even any vignetting, and sharp!
Obviously, the focal length has some substantial impact. But there may be even more to it. But as far as Rodenstock's specs are concerned, they seem to be very simple specs and some of them just seem assumed based on the same size image circle.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Hi Vieri -
I consider the 32HR to be roughly in the 12mm range as a max (season to taste).
But the 50HR and the 180HR can shift much, much more. There is more to it than just the stated image circle. I cannot explain technically why this is possible (and I should be able to do so, so I will get an explanation). But we know factually, since we have shot with and tested all these lenses on all sorts of different cameras and with different sensor sizes that the specs from Rodenstock are not correct. In fact, gauging by Rodenstock's numbers it almost looks like they just took the same image circle and assumed the same shift parameters in some cases, and this is most definitely not the case in real world use.
The 50 HR-W can shift almost twice the amount of the 32 HR-W. And the 180 HR-S is a lens I ignored for years because of the stated 80mm image circle, which seemed very restrictive. And yet, when the IQ4 150 came out, I thought why not try it and see how it does on the best sensor for shifting, and found that I could shift 20mm horizontal + 20mm vertical shift - combined - with this lens on an IQ4 150. And the results are spectacular - not even any vignetting, and sharp!
Obviously, the focal length has some substantial impact. But there may be even more to it. But as far as Rodenstock's specs are concerned, they seem to be very simple specs and some of them just seem assumed based on the same size image circle.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Hi Steve,
I got 23mm, 32mm, 50mm and 90mm. With the 23mm, 32mm and 90mm, it feels like Rodenstock's specs are fairly accurate (see my reviews). The 50mm offers a little more shift than the 32mm, but I wouldn't go as far as saying twice the amount - maybe it depends on samples, too (?).
About the 180mm, I just got one on order, and I definitely hope you'll be right on its shift capabilities - I am looking forward to testing it when I'll get it.
Best regards,
Vieri
-
Vieri:
Looking forward to your review of the Arca, rm3di. Much more manual operation than the X shutter, but unique in its feature set.
Paul
-
Vieri:
Looking forward to your review of the Arca, rm3di. Much more manual operation than the X shutter, but unique in its feature set.
Paul
Hey Paul,
thank you! Looking forward to receiving it and putting it to a good use! Best regards,
Vieri
-
Hi Steve,
I got 23mm, 32mm, 50mm and 90mm. With the 23mm, 32mm and 90mm, it feels like Rodenstock's specs are fairly accurate (see my reviews). The 50mm offers a little more shift than the 32mm, but I wouldn't go as far as saying twice the amount - maybe it depends on samples, too (?).
About the 180mm, I just got one on order, and I definitely hope you'll be right on its shift capabilities - I am looking forward to testing it when I'll get it.
Best regards,
Vieri
Hi Vieri -
The 50mm was used by Brad on a project with IQ4 150. As you can see from the article, he shifted 25mm in vertical orientation, so yes, not quite double the amount, but substantially more (you can see he is only getting some modest vignetting, and no hard vignette).
https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/ (https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/)
The 180 will be great - people need to know about the 180, because it doesn't scale the price heights of most of the other Rodenstock lenses, but it fully belongs in the lineup in terms of performance and especially shift capability. The 180 is a great solution in X Shutter for anyone on the Arca/Alpa/Cambo platforms, you'll be able to max out the shift in both directions combined with an IQ4 150.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Hi Vieri -
The 50mm was used by Brad on a project with IQ4 150. As you can see from the article, he shifted 25mm in vertical orientation, so yes, not quite double the amount, but substantially more (you can see he is only getting some modest vignetting, and no hard vignette).
https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/ (https://www.captureintegration.com/when-150-megapixels-isnt-enough/)
The 180 will be great - people need to know about the 180, because it doesn't scale the price heights of most of the other Rodenstock lenses, but it fully belongs in the lineup in terms of performance and especially shift capability. The 180 is a great solution in X Shutter for anyone on the Arca/Alpa/Cambo platforms, you'll be able to max out the shift in both directions combined with an IQ4 150.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve Hendrix/CI
Hi Steve,
25mm in vertical orientation would be 1.5x, rather than double the shift, compared with the 32mm. In my experience, I estimated about 22mm against the 16mm by Rodenstock, which is not dramatic but it's there.
I am excited about the 180mm, even though I got all my lenses for the Arca in Rodenstock Aperture Mount, rather than X-Shutter. For the kind of work I do, I think the weight saving, and the time saving in the field, will outweigh the advantages of the X-Shutter. Time will tell, and eventually I'll always be able to add it later if I feel it's really needed.
Best regards,
Vieri