Phase One XT reviewed

[alan_b]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[hotshoe]

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.

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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

[Steve Hendrix]

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/

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

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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/

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

[Steve Hendrix]

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

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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

[Paul2660]

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 Bottazzini]

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

[Steve Hendrix]

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/

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

[Vieri Bottazzini]

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/

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