The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Hasselblad X1D

fotografz

Well-known member
It may well turn out to be true. If the sensor is not proprietary, then nothing stops Pentax from putting it in their own FF body. Seeing as they did a much better job with the 645z than contemporary offerings of the time, it would not be surprising at all if they could do it again.

The question then is will the new body be smaller/mirrorless or not. If they can pull that off (mirrorless FF) that would be a real coup.

It is inevitable, IMHO, that somebody besides Phase will come up with a FF MF sensor with 80/100MP on it. That would be way more exciting than the X1D although it is in itself quite a leap forward. But some of us who have a 42MP A7RII with the new lenses find it is not enough to make the switch in a hurry.

MF, to me, means either a significantly larger sensor than 35mm and/or significantly higher resolution.
Since I had a comparable sensor camera to the Pentax 645Z, I'll disagree with you that they did a better job. While it was a terrific kit for some folks, and certainly broke the price grip of the major MFD players (thank you Pentax!), the 645Z was a non-modular system at a time when modularity was a real advantage. Both Hasselblad and Phase One were more fleshed out systems cameras.

Regarding your comparison to an A7R-II (which I own and shoot with excellent Zeiss lenses), I say again that such a comparison to the Hasselblad XD1 misses the point. It isn't just one component, the sensor, that weighs in the balance here. This is a specific type of camera that uses Leaf-Shutter lenses including a vast array of existing LS optics, has a UI miles ahead of the Sony (IMHO), and is a known entity to many long-time H and CFV users in terms of their True Color and tonal rendering.

Even taking the sensor alone: the XD1's more practical aspect ratio and additional volume is quite an advantage. The additional usable area is more than 50% larger than the A7R-II … so, in effect, resolution then becomes a function of what portion of the frame actually gets used in the end … not just spec's on paper. That becomes even more pointed if one is a Square Format lover (like myself):thumbup:.

Personally, I'm not terribly interested in 100 meg anything, so such news would be far from "way more exciting". It is getting harder and harder to realize all this resolution in everyday shooting. Again, not tech talk and spec's on paper, but real world use.

I see what Hasselblad has done here as a "real world" camera that significantly delivers new user experiences without walking away from their heritage as a leaf-shutter solution for those that prefer that.

- Marc
 

Chris Giles

New member
In response to the Fuji / Sony MF suggestion:

It seems like only a few years ago (probably because it was) that we had our first compact with a 35mm sensor in. Now we 35mm sensors in loads of bodies and have a compact with a medium format sensor.

Price doesn't really come into it when a type of product is being brought forward. I don't think it's that much of an influence anyway. You see, if an item is shown to be worth the investment people will buy it. I fully expect there to be a wall of '35mm isn't good enough' statements from the likes of Sony, Fuji hey, maybe Canon / Nikon in the next 5 years because these companies need to push the boundaries of the niche as smartphones are killing the sales of their base products.

I can TOTALLY see Hasselblad cannibalizing their lens range and licensing it to Sony as we're not talking about Hassy's main professional platform.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I never heard any statement from Canon, Nikon, Sony or Fuji that this or that format is not enough. Fuji is quite happy with APS-C while Olympus and Panasonic are making 4/3 cameras.

The simple truth is that any of those cameras is good enough for professional work at least up to something like A2 size.

On the other hand, there is something called development making any of those systems more capable over time.

Interestingly, MFD makers used to be more bound to make claims, like 16 bit colour although no MF sensor ever contained more than 14 bits of usable data before the IQ3 100. Interestingly Hasselblad still talks about 16-bit colour, although the X1D is very clearly a 14-bit device.

Anyway, I don't care much about marketing speak, I try to get hold of raw files and find out myself.

Best regards
Erik


In response to the Fuji / Sony MF suggestion:

It seems like only a few years ago (probably because it was) that we had our first compact with a 35mm sensor in. Now we 35mm sensors in loads of bodies and have a compact with a medium format sensor.

Price doesn't really come into it when a type of product is being brought forward. I don't think it's that much of an influence anyway. You see, if an item is shown to be worth the investment people will buy it. I fully expect there to be a wall of '35mm isn't good enough' statements from the likes of Sony, Fuji hey, maybe Canon / Nikon in the next 5 years because these companies need to push the boundaries of the niche as smartphones are killing the sales of their base products.

I can TOTALLY see Hasselblad cannibalizing their lens range and licensing it to Sony as we're not talking about Hassy's main professional platform.
 

Pradeep

Member
Since I had a comparable sensor camera to the Pentax 645Z, I'll disagree with you that they did a better job. While it was a terrific kit for some folks, and certainly broke the price grip of the major MFD players (thank you Pentax!), the 645Z was a non-modular system at a time when modularity was a real advantage. Both Hasselblad and Phase One were more fleshed out systems cameras.
Marc, at the risk of causing serious thread drift, I must disagree. I owned the Phase IQ180 before I got the Pentax so I know that system. Don't know anything about Hassy though. The only advantage modularity provided at the time was the ability to put the digital back on tech cameras, something that had no appeal for me and I dare say a limited one to many other people. I do agree that Phase and Hassy both had a much better offering in lenses. The other advantage of the big players (leaf shutter, high speed flash sync etc) was also lost on me since I don't do people. It was also of no use to purely landscape enthusiasts.

The Pentax body was a significant improvement over what Phase (645 DF+) was offering until the release of the XF. Yes, it is big and boxy with lots of knobs and buttons but they are all much more logical and useful than the competition was.

Regarding your comparison to an A7R-II (which I own and shoot with excellent Zeiss lenses), I say again that such a comparison to the Hasselblad XD1 misses the point. It isn't just one component, the sensor, that weighs in the balance here. This is a specific type of camera that uses Leaf-Shutter lenses including a vast array of existing LS optics, has a UI miles ahead of the Sony (IMHO), and is a known entity to many long-time H and CFV users in terms of their True Color and tonal rendering.

Even taking the sensor alone: the XD1's more practical aspect ratio and additional volume is quite an advantage. The additional usable area is more than 50% larger than the A7R-II … so, in effect, resolution then becomes a function of what portion of the frame actually gets used in the end … not just spec's on paper. That becomes even more pointed if one is a Square Format lover (like myself):thumbup:.
Agree partially, and I've said all along that the X1D is a big leap forward, offering a big MF sensor in a small body. But we don't really know the exact UI yet. From everything I've read people are still wondering if the AF point can be moved or not, so the actual functionality of the camera is yet to be determined. I will grant you that Sony could definitely improve upon their own system in this regard.

A square or even 4:3 ratio does not appeal to me as a predominantly landscape shooter, it probably does to people into fashion and maybe weddings. I agree there is a lot more real estate even with a cropped 645 sensor, but I almost always have to trim it down to either 3:2 or even 16:9 - unless I stitch, which I find myself doing a lot - so the real area that is useful to me is actually not that much larger.

Personally, I'm not terribly interested in 100 meg anything, so such news would be far from "way more exciting". It is getting harder and harder to realize all this resolution in everyday shooting. Again, not tech talk and spec's on paper, but real world use.
As I said earlier, TO ME the advantage of MF over 35mm (don't want to start a long debate here) is sensor size (thus lower noise for same pixels) and/or higher resolution (larger, more 'immersive' prints). Don't care about shallow DOF (actually a disadvantage for landscape use) or bokeh for my work. I print 44X28 or larger routinely so the extra resolution does help.

I see what Hasselblad has done here as a "real world" camera that significantly delivers new user experiences without walking away from their heritage as a leaf-shutter solution for those that prefer that.

- Marc
Agree, it is a novel camera and I might end up getting it when more details emerge. Right now it's use for me is rather limited since I do not do the kind of imaging that requires or benefits from LS etc that I mentioned earlier.

Which is why I can't wait to see what Pentax or Sony come up with as options in MF.
 

sc_john

Active member
I do not do the kind of imaging that requires or benefits from LS...
Pradeep,

Clearly each of has different thoughts on the "best " camera for our purposes, but I think LS lenses are a plus for landscape shooting, since they are less likely to cause/contribute to camera shake. When locked down on a tripod, this may not be as much of an issue, but I would still opt for less movement/vibration within the camera. I am not a proponent of handheld landscape work, but if necessary (limited time, rapidly changing light, moving platform) I would opt for LS to increase the possibility of a usable image. Having said that, I admit to currently shooting LS lenses, so I am probably biased...:cool:

John
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

Shutter shock is more of a problem when shooting on tripod. On free hand one would probably use short exposure times and the hand probably dampens vibrations pretty well. On a DSLR, MF or not, the swinging mirror is the main cause of vibration. Shutter shock can be eliminated by an electronic first shutter curtain.

Obviously, the X1D has no issues with vibrations.

Depending on how well the X1D is designed it may be a pretty decent landscape camera.

Best regards
Erik


Pradeep,

Clearly each of has different thoughts on the "best " camera for our purposes, but I think LS lenses are a plus for landscape shooting, since they are less likely to cause/contribute to camera shake. When locked down on a tripod, this may not be as much of an issue, but I would still opt for less movement/vibration within the camera. I am not a proponent of handheld landscape work, but if necessary (limited time, rapidly changing light, moving platform) I would opt for LS to increase the possibility of a usable image. Having said that, I admit to currently shooting LS lenses, so I am probably biased...:cool:

John
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Agree partially, and I've said all along that the X1D is a big leap forward, offering a big MF sensor in a small body. But we don't really know the exact UI yet. From everything I've read people are still wondering if the AF point can be moved or not, so the actual functionality of the camera is yet to be determined. I will grant you that Sony could definitely improve upon their own system in this regard.
FYI.

There was mention in one interview with Hasselblad engineers that flexible spot AF (as its called on Sony) will be available in the X1D. This makes up (if executed well) for the lack of them implementing their True Focus system into the camera. It's not present on the preproduction cameras used for hands on demo's yet but they expect it to be completed by the time the first bodies ship or shortly thereafter through a firmware update.
 

algrove

Well-known member
Since I had a comparable sensor camera to the Pentax 645Z, I'll disagree with you that they did a better job. While it was a terrific kit for some folks, and certainly broke the price grip of the major MFD players (thank you Pentax!), the 645Z was a non-modular system at a time when modularity was a real advantage. Both Hasselblad and Phase One were more fleshed out systems cameras.- Marc
We all have our opinions, but someone who's words I have respected for years was Michael Reichmann's and in his Lula September 2014 article (maybe 2015) he emphasized what many continue to infer here. He wrote that of the 3 manufactureres using the Sony 51MP sensor at that time, Pentaz seems to have perfected its use better than the rest.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't know about the 44x33 mm sensor but the A7rII does electronic first curtain at 14-bits. Silent shutter is 12-bits, but silent shutter has no real advantage over EFSC. To begin with, silent shutter is very slow. But it is silent. No moving parts.

You may also ask if cameras are image making devices or playthings? It is quite true that Sony's menu system is a mess, but you can have a pair of presets and you can assign almost any button to almost any shurtcut. Whatever camera you use, you need to learn to configure it. Once you have done it will work for you.

I never had a Fuji, so i don't know about that. I do have a P45+ and a bunch of Sony cameras.

Best regards
Erik



People speculate that Fuji will use the same sensor and have an electronic shutter of PDAF or whatever, but the fact of the matter is the chip does not support it without dropping to 12bit or, in the case of PDAF, without significant changes to its design. Are people suggesting that they'll get a completely new sensor, or what?

I don't know what the fuss is about with regards to Fuji mirrorless cameras. I've tried to use them and by my own (admittedly very personal) measures they're horrible. Not in terms of end image quality, but the handling and UI. The only thing I liked about them was manual aperture ring and shutter speed dial. And I'm with others here with regards to the Sony mirrorless cameras. Great tools, but I found them a chore to pick up and use, for the most part due to UI.
 

BANKER1

Member
We all have our opinions, but someone who's words I have respected for years was Michael Reichmann's and in his Lula September 2014 article (maybe 2015) he emphasized what many continue to infer here. He wrote that of the 3 manufactureres using the Sony 51MP sensor at that time, Pentaz seems to have perfected its use better than the rest.
Personally, I would take Marc's opinion one hundred times over MR.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

That was than and we have here and now. Pentax has some contemporary DSLRs and they can use that technology for their MFD offerings.

But, the X1D is a mirrorless design using contrast detecting AF, very different from the Pentax 645Z. So we need to compare the X1D on it's own merits. Right now, there is only one fully integrated mirrorless MFD camera and that is the Hasselblad X1D. It may get some competition, there are some rumours but we don't know.

The X1D has a few features the Pentax 645Z lacks:

  • It is mirrorless and therefore compact.
  • It has leaf shutter.
  • It has a nameplate saying Hasselblad.
  • It has 2-3 purpose built lenses for mirrorless.

Best regards
Erik




We all have our opinions, but someone who's words I have respected for years was Michael Reichmann's and in his Lula September 2014 article (maybe 2015) he emphasized what many continue to infer here. He wrote that of the 3 manufactureres using the Sony 51MP sensor at that time, Pentaz seems to have perfected its use better than the rest.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't know about the 44x33 mm sensor but the A7rII does electronic first curtain at 14-bits. Silent shutter is 12-bits, but silent shutter has no real advantage over EFSC. To begin with, silent shutter is very slow. But it is silent. No moving parts.

You may also ask if cameras are image making devices or playthings? It is quite true that Sony's menu system is a mess, but you can have a pair of presets and you can assign almost any button to almost any shurtcut. Whatever camera you use, you need to learn to configure it. Once you have done it will work for you.

I never had a Fuji, so i don't know about that. I do have a P45+ and a bunch of Sony cameras.

Best regards
Erik

But it does - if you don't want to scare away birds and such. :grin:
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
People too. Absolutely fantastic. :thumbs:
Thanks Vivek. Oh so true.
For example my two young granddaughters stop paying attention to me and the camera if they don't notice any sounds coming from the camera.
Together with Eye-AF that's just magical! :thumbs:
 

Pradeep

Member
FYI.

There was mention in one interview with Hasselblad engineers that flexible spot AF (as its called on Sony) will be available in the X1D. This makes up (if executed well) for the lack of them implementing their True Focus system into the camera. It's not present on the preproduction cameras used for hands on demo's yet but they expect it to be completed by the time the first bodies ship or shortly thereafter through a firmware update.
Thanks, yes, I did read that. My point was it was not something mentioned earlier meaning the UI is not yet completely detailed since nobody has really used the camera properly. Hence it is a bit premature to say it will be perfect. I agree though that in all probability it will be more user friendly than Sony's interface.

FWIW, I gave up on Fuji a few years ago because I couldn't work with their UI although many swear by it.
 

David Schneider

New member
Why would Fuji come along a MF camera? Sure, they had some in their film days, but the question is: why would they develop a MF camera now? Their X-series of cameras is doing very well, I would rather expect them to continue investing in that direction.
I guess the simple reason is Fuji is a large company not dependent on the success of their imaging division for financial security. In addition, the company seems to allow the imaging division to develop lines that may or may not be successful. So Fuji could develop an MFD line and if it didn't work they could let it go. (Think the Fuji dslr line.) That fact that they have done well and advanced mirrorless so far makes them more likely to do it, but doesn't guarantee they would.

As for their mirrorless line, they will probably stay with the 24mp sensor for sometime to come (unless they are going to start manufacturing their own sensors). They have developed a good number of lenses and there aren't that many more they will come out with that aren't on the drawing board already. So maybe they might look at the MFD market and feel they can expand it by taking more business away from Canon and Nikon by surrounding them with the X-Series on the small sensor end and a MFD line on the larger side making the dslr market sandwiched in the middle with fewer advantages for purchasers all the time.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
You may also ask if cameras are image making devices or playthings? It is quite true that Sony's menu system is a mess, but you can have a pair of presets and you can assign almost any button to almost any shurtcut. Whatever camera you use, you need to learn to configure it. Once you have done it will work for you.


Best regards
Erik
Yet, there is such a thing as good user design and ergonomics that promotes less involvement with the camera when exploring various creative ideas or visions.

I've quipped to friends that I need to tattoo the Sony manual on my arm so I can control the damned thing when in the throes of shooting … where I'm more interested in what the subject is doing or what is happening with the light. It is as if a lawyer wrote the interface, subchapter-interface, sub-annotation interface, for Sony:ROTFL: I'm surprised there aren't asterisks* on menu items.

It's a dog's breakfast no matter how you configure it or assign short-cuts. I've never used a camera so demanding or requiring as much attention … it's a needy little brat IMO.

If we keep on excusing Sony and giving them a pass, they'll never change anything.

IMHO.

- Marc
 

CSP

New member
It's a dog's breakfast no matter how you configure it or assign short-cuts. I've never used a camera so demanding or requiring as much attention … it's a needy little brat IMO.

If we keep on excusing Sony and giving them a pass, they'll never change anything.

IMHO.

- Marc
what did you aspect ? a camera with more advanced feauters and options than all generations before ? of course this is a complex camera and you need more time
to learn it. but if you use it on a regularly base and not just every few weeks is is NOT that difficult to master. this ongoing lament tells more
about the user than the camera.
 
Top