My thoughts on the new PhaseOne XF (what are yours?)

[nicemate1]

Something I haven't yet found mention of:

is the new XF compatible with the P+ backs?

Many thanks,

Pietro

[eronald]

Why bother? Ilford already coat plates commercially for special applications, not a stretch to replace the emulsion with an optically/photographic friendly one.
http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=56
They use a horizontal conveyor moving the plates under a coating head. The plates are then chilled by a cold-water bath just reaching the bottom of the plate then continue on the conveyor before being stacked in a filtered chiller room to fully set.

BTW Is this OT ? 

I was thinking of home-made emulsions. Make them, expose, process and scan, contact print, or put them on lightbox, rinse and repeat.
Of course we are not OT - and anyway, how could 100 year old color images in any way detract from the intrinsic superiority of the Phase FX?

Edmund

[JoeKitchen]

Something I haven't yet found mention of:

is the new XF compatible with the P+ backs?

Many thanks,

Pietro

I do not think it is.  I am kind of disappointed in this. 

[Theodoros]

I do not think it is.  I am kind of disappointed in this. 

Μany people are... It doesn't mean that only P owners are treated as being "third party" owners, it also means that third party back owners are left out of access to the XF platform if they want to retain their present backs... It is a very dangerous decision they have made that many possible customers will take as been a blackmail.

I do believe it is a short minded decision also... It only looks on current competition from H5X body and is based on the financial problems of Hasselblad as for people not to trust the (currently available) alternative... What about Sinar though that is directly affected as Sinarbacks are left with only Hasselblad platforms as to be compatible? ...what if Leica (the owner of Sinar) decides to come up with an open platform that will both provide a platform for existing Sinarbacks, but will also invite all older third party and P back owners into the new system? What if they (Leica/Sinar) decide to resurrect Contax as to provide the alternative platform?

I believe that under international law, the Contax system returns back to Zeiss for distributing the rights by the end of this year (10 years after...), without any obligations for Kyocera compensation... and even more... Leica has had adapters out that make H lenses and C645 lenses compatible with the S system... is it that they choose those two systems by luck as to support? ...or is it a future plan as to see what will suit them best for the future? ...I believe the answer is near...

[PaulSchneider]

My Primary gripe with the new system is that I have an Aptus and would like to upgrade from to the DF Body, but do not feel that the upgrade price for a whole System is worth it considering that sensor technology has not changed much in the last years - if one wants to stay full Frame.

The current CMOS back is nice but has a crop factor and the CCD backs are barely usable above base iso.

So do we have any hints as to when we will see a full-frame CMOS and a resolution increase?

A full-frame 100 MPX CMOS would be enough reason to fully upgrade in my opinion! Anyone also disappointed that we do not see any real Progress in Terms of sensor technology?

Best

Paul

[Christopher Sanderson]

... do we have any hints as to when we will see a full-frame CMOS and a resolution increase?

This seems like a fairly broad hint now that the lens offerings are pretty solid.

[Ken R]

Wow. Unsurprisingly, given the history of comments on this forum, some of you are being quite negative about this new camera. The XF looks amazing. It ads a level of functionality previously unheard of in Medium Format and even ads quite a few things not available in ANY camera regardless of format.

A few things.

Many of you are complaining that the XF is a closed camera. Yes, it is only compatible with the more modern backs (IQ1x and Credo or newer) but those backs have been sold for a while now and the lower end models can be had at good prices. Yes, if you are a P+ (or Aptus) owner it can be frustrating but thankfully the H1/H2/H4x/H5x are still available for those backs and frankly, the H platform has been the best option for those backs for a while now.

Wow, "the ccd backs are barely usable above base iso"?

All cameras start to loose quality and dynamic range as you go above base iso. The CCD backs are no different but I find that with my IQ160 I can still use iso 200 with superb results (at 60MP). Even iso 400 is very good. With Sensor+ I can go above that and still get awesome image quality (at a loss in resolution). Why is that I don't care. I know how it looks. Even so, for very high ISO's the CMOS backs are the right choice, period.

That said, the XF seems like a solid platform that will last many many years. Seems like it is pretty easy to update through firmware so I am sure phase will keep it fresh for many years to come. It looks good too. Finally a camera at the level of the IQ backs. Good stuff.

[Theodoros]

This seems like a fairly broad hint now that the lens offerings are pretty solid.

Βut however its not directly related with improving ones photography as such... is it?

[Theodoros]

Wow. Unsurprisingly, given the history of comments on this forum, some of you are being quite negative about this new camera. The XF looks amazing. It ads a level of functionality previously unheard of in Medium Format and even ads quite a few things not available in ANY camera regardless of format.

A few things.

Many of you are complaining that the XF is a closed camera. Yes, it is only compatible with the more modern backs (IQ1x and Credo or newer) but those backs have been sold for a while now and the lower end models can be had at good prices. Yes, if you are a P+ (or Aptus) owner it can be frustrating but thankfully the H1/H2/H4x/H5x are still available for those backs and frankly, the H platform has been the best option for those backs for a while now.

Wow, "the ccd backs are barely usable above base iso"?

All cameras start to loose quality and dynamic range as you go above base iso. The CCD backs are no different but I find that with my IQ160 I can still use iso 200 with superb results (at 60MP). Even iso 400 is very good. With Sensor+ I can go above that and still get awesome image quality (at a loss in resolution). Why is that I don't care. I know how it looks. Even so, for very high ISO's the CMOS backs are the right choice, period.

That said, the XF seems like a solid platform that will last many many years. Seems like it is pretty easy to update through firmware so I am sure phase will keep it fresh for many years to come. It looks good too. Finally a camera at the level of the IQ backs. Good stuff.

you forget one thing... that people who stick with older backs, it is (mostly) their choice to do so.... not every photographer uses his camera for fashion or landscape... or if they do for landscape, some prefer backs that favorite movements... an area where older backs are better than modern...

[Ken R]

you forget one thing... that people who stick with older backs, it is (mostly) their choice to do so.... not every photographer uses his camera for fashion or landscape... or if they do for landscape, some prefer backs that favorite movements... an area where older backs are better than modern...

Ok, but if you are using an older back for camera movements then you are using it on a tech camera platform and an high tech SLR body is not really a priority for that user.

Even for landscape / Architecture I would not want to lug around a SLR body like the XF (although the new features are tempting along with the new 35mm lens). I much rather use a tech camera solution that is much smaller and lighter plus offers extensive camera movements and increased lens quality.

In the studio a tech or bellows type camera is also a must for still life and product photography if you want lens/back movements.

In those cases SLR camera compatibility is of almost no consequence and there are options for when you want / need one.

 

[Ken R]

BC, great point.

My studio is inside a building that houses a post-production facility. Im really good friends with the owner and their top colorist. The before and after's I have seen of a lot of the work that comes in would shock most people. They do a lot of commercial work and the amount of compositing (yes, even integration of 3D elements), color correction (with tracking masks etc) and overall image manipulation that is done on most commercials (and movies) is extensive.

The same holds true with a lot of commercial images. Even those that seem natural and simple have a lot of work. Retouching houses in NY like THIS one work on a lot of the top images one sees published in major magazines / publications nowadays. Post production is a huge part of professional photography.

That said the photographer is responsible for the creative vision in a lot of the images and also in selecting / directing all the elements in the frame and that includes the talent, wardrobe, hair/make up, props, location/set elements and of course the light and light modifiers.

The selection of the camera/lens is just a small part in this process. An important one, but far from the single one that has a huge determination on the final product. It will affect the shooting process and of course the post-production process. For the photographer it is a matter of personal preference most times. The guys in post-production can probably tell you more about which files they rather work on.

[Theodoros]

Ok, but if you are using an older back for camera movements then you are using it on a tech camera platform and an high tech SLR body is not really a priority for that user.

Even for landscape / Architecture I would not want to lug around a SLR body like the XF (although the new features are tempting along with the new 35mm lens). I much rather use a tech camera solution that is much smaller and lighter plus offers extensive camera movements and increased lens quality.

In the studio a tech or bellows type camera is also a must for still life and product photography if you want lens/back movements.

In those cases SLR camera compatibility is of almost no consequence and there are options for when you want / need one.

 

+1 Agree... it's all common sense... this body, doesn't intent to be integrated into ones photography as to provide solutions... it rather aims to "trap" photographers around it...  and it's only "another black box"...

[Manoli]

I wouldn't worry about Annie, her finances and bookings .  She works and has a huge body of iconic imagery that has more value than most 3 story manhattan residences.

Slight exaggeration - she mortgaged the whole shebang for about £15 million.
Also as a Vanity Fair staff photographer, a lot of her portfolio isn't included - ditto the Pirelli work she did. Working as staff photographer for VF has it's perks - the same would go for Seliger.

Remember she shot the Queen with a Canon and a zoom.   It's difficult to get higher profile than that.

Those were the prelims, the final shots of the Queen were on MF and heavily composited - look at the backgrounds.
(OT: A lot of those Canon shots were on display at the National Portrait Gallery, together with a multitude of Leica M shots that included personal work with Sonntag and, more impressively, 10x8 portraits of Schwarzkopf plus others I've now forgotten. IMO, it was her 10x8's that really stood out).

Annie's not whistle clean either, remember Paolo Pizzett , the Italian photographer who sued her, around the same time, for editing ( read:nicking) his scouting pictures for LavAzza, later compositing models into his shots taken in Rome and Plaza San Marco in Venice.

Anyway, it seems now that, Kate, is the new Royal photographer of choice.
Question is, are Phase going to sponsor her - and how much will a Phase XF cost with the Royal crest and 'By Appointment ..' emblazoned on the side ? Now that'll be high profile! [/LHQ]

edit:
annie's doomsday .. circa 2009

[eronald]

Theo,

 The cheapest "body upgrade" solution for anyone with a P back may be to somehow arrange a swap for an H mount model and get a Hassy. Or just trade in for a Hassy. I would expect the Phase dealers will manage to get some better deal for the customers once the FX bodies become less scarce.

Edmund

Μany people are... It doesn't mean that only P owners are treated as being "third party" owners, it also means that third party back owners are left out of access to the XF platform if they want to retain their present backs... It is a very dangerous decision they have made that many possible customers will take as been a blackmail.

I do believe it is a short minded decision also... It only looks on current competition from H5X body and is based on the financial problems of Hasselblad as for people not to trust the (currently available) alternative... What about Sinar though that is directly affected as Sinarbacks are left with only Hasselblad platforms as to be compatible? ...what if Leica (the owner of Sinar) decides to come up with an open platform that will both provide a platform for existing Sinarbacks, but will also invite all older third party and P back owners into the new system? What if they (Leica/Sinar) decide to resurrect Contax as to provide the alternative platform?

I believe that under international law, the Contax system returns back to Zeiss for distributing the rights by the end of this year (10 years after...), without any obligations for Kyocera compensation... and even more... Leica has had adapters out that make H lenses and C645 lenses compatible with the S system... is it that they choose those two systems by luck as to support? ...or is it a future plan as to see what will suit them best for the future? ...I believe the answer is near...

[JV]

If I were a P65+ user who bought the back 5 years ago for around $40,000 and waited patiently for 5 years for the new body I probably would be thoroughly pissed...

If I were a Contax user I probably would be thoroughly pissed as well...

As a Hy6 user I have been pissed for a while...

That being said the new body looks great and I wish Phase One all the best...

[barihunk]

If I were a P65+ user who bought the back 5 years ago for around $40,000 and waited patiently for 5 years for the new body I probably would be thoroughly pissed...

If I were a Contax user I probably would be thoroughly pissed as well...

As a Hy6 user I have been pissed for a while...

That being said the new body looks great and I wish Phase One all the best...

+1.

If the XF were compatible with the P series backs I'd be all over one, even at the ludicrous pricing of 8k. Right now IMO it stinks of greed and lack of business sense. On the other hand if in a couple months they came out with a firmware update to give P back compatibility then I'd say, still stinks of greed but that would be brilliant business move - plenty of grumbles, but no rants there.

If I can use a P back on a view camera with just an X sync connection I find it hard to believe that something simple couldn't have been worked out for the XF and the P backs. I mean this is supposed to be the best and most advanced MF camera syste isn't it?

[Theodoros]

+1.

If the XF were compatible with the P series backs I'd be all over one, even at the ludicrous pricing of 8k. Right now IMO it stinks of greed and lack of business sense. On the other hand if in a couple months they came out with a firmware update to give P back compatibility then I'd say, still stinks of greed but that would be brilliant business move - plenty of grumbles, but no rants there.

If I can use a P back on a view camera with just an X sync connection I find it hard to believe that something simple couldn't have been worked out for the XF and the P backs. I mean this is supposed to be the best and most advanced MF camera syste isn't it?

That's why I insist that they left out the P bodies deliberately... Letting the P bodies "in" would mean letting third party backs in as well.... 

[eronald]

J,

 Yes, Annie solves a publication's problem of ovepowering  a celebrity subject to find time, sit up and behave.
 I am impressed with her skill at planning ahead ahead and her pressure-cooker technique for shooting creatively under sharp time constraints, her ability to create no-fail lighting setups that allow quick indoors work, even when doing groups.

 Apart from that, i agree one doesnt need much money or the newest stills system these days, but video sure looks like a money pit, from the camera through the postprod computers and the assistants and editors. I think the strongest competition for Phase budgetwise is not Hassy of even Canon but rather the insatiable video ogre.

 Btw that second (blue) pic above is neat!

Edmund

Edmund,

As far as Annie goes, people need to understand that she's still the world's foremost celebrity photographer and that carries a lot of water.  She can assert her style and will on that A list segment of stars that would leave the set if it was other photographers.

She's always moved around on cameras and from those Vanity Fare videos she was shooting a lot of bright ambient light with strobe, that's probably why she went with a Hasselblad and phase rental back, because that's a stable combination with in lens shutters,  easily available on rental.

Also a part of Annie's look comes from heavy post retouching so count the pores photography doesn't push her brand.

I wouldn't worry about Annie, her finances and bookings .  She works and has a huge body of iconic imagery that has more value than most 3 story manhattan residences.

If she or anyone is shooting a cover of Vanity Fare on the new Star Wars, with a BTS video attached, I can promise you it doesn't take many calls to get any camera she wants in her hands.

Remember she shot the Queen with a Canon and a zoom.   It's difficult to get higher profile than that.

Companies like Phase don't make their money off of photographers at Annie's level, they make it off of people that a dealer tells them the only way to go forward is to write Aston Martin sized checks, get them in their ecosystem and move the business model so there is no other financial option, but to stay with that one brand, completely.

That's why there is proprietary lens mounts, back mounts, etc.

IMO

BC

[tsjanik]

.....................So the moral of the story is buy what you want, or don't . . . enjoy it, make money, make art.


IMO

BC

+1.   

[dergiman]

Wow, 800 Euros for the waist level finder. Way too much!