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 USDefinitely, 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.
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