Phase One XT reviewed

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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

[Manoli]

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".

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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

[Martin Kristiansen]

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.

[Paul2660]

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

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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

[adammork]

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

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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

[adammork]

Hello Paul,

please see the graphics in my review here: 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

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[Martin Kristiansen]

Bravo Bernard.

I food summary I believe, skilfully extracted from the thread.

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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.

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

[kers]

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

[Weldon Brewster]

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

[ben730]

.....

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

[matted]

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.

[Smoothjazz]

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 Bottazzini]

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

[Paqart]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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