Bad news, so P1 leaves the field to Hasselblad for V body users.
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 vs GFX system
- Thread starter marchaers
- Start date
Nothing wrong with that. There are just a few of us who like larger sensors. And competition is never bad...
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
It's never a fun job delivering bad news, but someone has to do it .....
Steve Hendrix/CI
marchaers
Member
That's true, if there was a larger CMOS sensor for V-mount cameras I'd be so excited.
I personally prefer the A7RIII over the RIV since IMO the extra pixels don't really make better files, especially at higher ISO (AF is a different story)
I used the A7RIII side by side with the GFX 50 for almost 2 years and in the end the files weren't THAT different but handling definitely was (in favor of sony)
once I went with X1DII and 907 the files were just a clear step up over the sony, 2 friends of mine (also professionals) agreed and also got into the X system (one sold her GFX) both these people also happen to shoot a lot of film btw
I am reluctant to agree that the larger sensors ( as used in the H and phase systems) are getting extinct.....the market is just getting so small....and lots of people are going back to shooting film even in commercial settings (especially fashion and portrait)
a very successful car shooter sold his phase kit and bought GFX, in the end post production (and CGI) plays a huge part and the post houses want the extra pixels (more then whatever color preferences we as shooters might have)
at the end of the day I prefer hasselblad files but am not 100% sure I would want to put up with H system but I guess that is pretty much the dilemma you are in
marchaers
Member
@PSS Yeah I honestly have to say I've once used an R IV on set and it wasn't that great of a difference other than the new tech (like AF as you say).
It is very interesting though to hear these positive stories about the X line and 907 because one alternative that I'd have is to go for the 907+an older V mount body. If I'm still very unsure after Sunday I might take one of those on a test drive.
Yeah, the difference between the modern/easier digital medium format cameras and the old way of shooting digital MF is getting so small resolution wise that there is a very tiny market left for it. Probably not enough to justify it's existence anymore. Let's hope otherwise.
I think I'm pretty dead set on going for the H camera if I like it. But if not I have been swayed to consider the X or at least 907 + older body platform.
See in my line of work (thankfully) the biggest investment I can make in my imagery is to set myself further apart in the creative sense. Art and 'style-specific' photography is a tiny market but for those who are part of it (like myself) there's a life long steady career to be built around it, which I have been doing for the past 10 years.
I personally don't see the big use of shooting film for my type of work. But maybe that's just me not being very sensitive to trend-based decision. Film looks in high end photography is very much appreciated, but most of my colleagues do it just to become a part of the cool film-gang lol. Then again, I shoot large format for the sake of it being too hard for the most of my colleagues to start with. I guess I'm one of the fish that likes to swims upstream lol. Stubborn son of a gun...
I'm in this unique position where my personal preference outweighs whatever the clients want from me. 95% of the jobs I have rely on my input or whatever I see fit creatively. So I'd also be honest enough to a client to definitely not shoot medium format. Though for anything that feels worth it I can apply it but that will always be a conscious choice for both myself and the client. I can tell them it will be slow, less shots will be taken but it will be worth their while and that'll be said and done.
Next to that I'm really enjoying geeking out on this forum. Can't wait to come back with some results and a final conclusion.
It is very interesting though to hear these positive stories about the X line and 907 because one alternative that I'd have is to go for the 907+an older V mount body. If I'm still very unsure after Sunday I might take one of those on a test drive.
Yeah, the difference between the modern/easier digital medium format cameras and the old way of shooting digital MF is getting so small resolution wise that there is a very tiny market left for it. Probably not enough to justify it's existence anymore. Let's hope otherwise.
I think I'm pretty dead set on going for the H camera if I like it. But if not I have been swayed to consider the X or at least 907 + older body platform.
See in my line of work (thankfully) the biggest investment I can make in my imagery is to set myself further apart in the creative sense. Art and 'style-specific' photography is a tiny market but for those who are part of it (like myself) there's a life long steady career to be built around it, which I have been doing for the past 10 years.
I personally don't see the big use of shooting film for my type of work. But maybe that's just me not being very sensitive to trend-based decision. Film looks in high end photography is very much appreciated, but most of my colleagues do it just to become a part of the cool film-gang lol. Then again, I shoot large format for the sake of it being too hard for the most of my colleagues to start with. I guess I'm one of the fish that likes to swims upstream lol. Stubborn son of a gun...
I'm in this unique position where my personal preference outweighs whatever the clients want from me. 95% of the jobs I have rely on my input or whatever I see fit creatively. So I'd also be honest enough to a client to definitely not shoot medium format. Though for anything that feels worth it I can apply it but that will always be a conscious choice for both myself and the client. I can tell them it will be slow, less shots will be taken but it will be worth their while and that'll be said and done.
Next to that I'm really enjoying geeking out on this forum. Can't wait to come back with some results and a final conclusion.
If you are considering X system as an alternative, I suggest you pay attention to the ergonomics of the H6D during your test : it is centered around the touchscreen and the simplified yet quick to understand and use menus. It will be exactly the same on X system, because it is the same electronic platform. I personally find it a great success, and it now makes going back to any other camera a pain. Simple = efficient. Once again, I speak of the touch screen usage, all the rest being different obviously.
If you don't like it on the H6D, X system could be a less attractive alternative...
If you don't like it on the H6D, X system could be a less attractive alternative...
the X system has a few advantages over (really) any other system. the camera bodies and on screen menus are insane easy to work with and you really have to wonder why (for example) Sony has such a hard time getting a decent menu system on their cameras. the X and 907 just get out of the way, very much like old MF cameras used to do.
the other advantage IMO is Phocus which is an incredible stable and now also pretty full featured tethering solution, it has come a long way and I prefer it to C1 (which I have had the pleasure of working with for 20? years) but the real kicker is Phocus mobile which might be the fastest and easiest tethering solution, super solid, and fast, fast, fast. it is also getting better and better and the last release cleared up some (really idiotic) drawbacks. 907 + iPad Pro is incredibly light and portable and just works.
I still consider the 50m sensor in the existing X bodies to be the best middle ground, great color, great tones, great DR, nice higher ISO, nice texture and still lots of resolution. no it can't compete with phase 150mpix or H mulithsot but with latest tech like adobe super resolution, I am not sure anyone will see a difference even when printed absolutely huge. considering that apple has been blowing up iPhone shots to building size for years it also comes down to who handles post and printing.
anyway, I am sure you will find a good solution for what you need, film is always fun as well and when I think how much I paid for my first phase backs 15 years ago, these systems are super affordable and much more future proof.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I don't have much to offer as opinions on the P1 backs or Fuji MFD systems, never used either. The Hasselblad 907x/CFVII 50c is my first medium format digital camera, and I bought it because it is a beautifully integrated complement to my existing Hasselblad V system with seamless integration and excellent performance. Yes, it's "only" 50Mpixel and "only" a 33x44 mm sensor ... doesn't matter to me, it delivers the workflow and performance I'm after, both used as a back on my 500CM cameras/lenses and as a complete camera with XCD and adapted other lenses. It's simple, easy to figure out, and lets me concentrate on doing my photography.
I never bought into the H system for the very simple reason that I couldn't afford to. $33K for a body, a couple $10K more for lenses. Sorry, that's way past any pay grade I ever reached in both my career and in my photographic business. Stuff like that is only approachable if someone regularly pays me quite the good bit of money to use it, and no one ever offered that to me, although I have made a fair bit of money from photography over my lifetime. Oh well, I'm retired now and happy to be able to afford, and to have the energy to use, what I have...
G
I never bought into the H system for the very simple reason that I couldn't afford to. $33K for a body, a couple $10K more for lenses. Sorry, that's way past any pay grade I ever reached in both my career and in my photographic business. Stuff like that is only approachable if someone regularly pays me quite the good bit of money to use it, and no one ever offered that to me, although I have made a fair bit of money from photography over my lifetime. Oh well, I'm retired now and happy to be able to afford, and to have the energy to use, what I have...
G
marchaers
Member
@SylB Good call! I will most definitely pay extra attention to it when I use it. I have read/seen great stories about their interface.
@PSS You've got my attention with the fast (wireless) tethering. I do even remember shooting with Hasselblad for the first time back in 2013 that their tethering + wireless tethering to iPad for the client was very very stable. Maybe I'll switch out the GFX 100S that I'm renting for the Hasselblad X1D II to compare that sensor. Because this information has sold me on their platform. I've already installed Phocus so that's going to be thoroughly tested too.
@Godfrey Very fair call, if it's workflow you're after the (slight) sensor size shouldn't make a difference indeed. I do agree with you that anywhere between 50MP and 60MP is a sweet spot that gets you the quality you need across the board. I like that the recurring opinion is that the touch screen is very nice to use. Concerning the insane price tags of these MF cameras I fully agree with you. My clients are willing to pay for the 'use of gear' for shoots but I would also never put 35K in a camera to be honest. There's SO much you can do with that kind of investments. I'm going to be able to get the H6D-100C + 80mm 2.8 (which is enough for now) for about 10.000 euros. That's really the only reason I'm considering it. If this sale doesn't pull through I'll turn my attention to the 50 megapixel backs.
@PSS You've got my attention with the fast (wireless) tethering. I do even remember shooting with Hasselblad for the first time back in 2013 that their tethering + wireless tethering to iPad for the client was very very stable. Maybe I'll switch out the GFX 100S that I'm renting for the Hasselblad X1D II to compare that sensor. Because this information has sold me on their platform. I've already installed Phocus so that's going to be thoroughly tested too.
@Godfrey Very fair call, if it's workflow you're after the (slight) sensor size shouldn't make a difference indeed. I do agree with you that anywhere between 50MP and 60MP is a sweet spot that gets you the quality you need across the board. I like that the recurring opinion is that the touch screen is very nice to use. Concerning the insane price tags of these MF cameras I fully agree with you. My clients are willing to pay for the 'use of gear' for shoots but I would also never put 35K in a camera to be honest. There's SO much you can do with that kind of investments. I'm going to be able to get the H6D-100C + 80mm 2.8 (which is enough for now) for about 10.000 euros. That's really the only reason I'm considering it. If this sale doesn't pull through I'll turn my attention to the 50 megapixel backs.
But you also had good news, "their [P1] industrial systems, which are experiencing significant sales growth"!
I actually don't really use wireless tethering much, I have used it when I had to put the 907 out of reach as a wireless finder and trigger. I mostly use the iPad with cable for tethering on location when I don't want to set up a tethering station.
If your subject matter is highly cooperative (like a landscape without much wind), and IQ is your top priority, then go for the 54x40 sensor. Otherwise, I think in practice 44x33 will be virtually indistinguishable in quality but will offer modern features such as decent AF. And if you really, really need to get the shot under challenging conditions, I suggest a Sony alpha 1 or a7 Series.
Note that the GFX100 has the IQ4-150‘s sensor but cropped.
The H6-100 uses the IQ3-100 sensor, which is a generation older than the GFX100/IQ4-150 sensor.
The GFX50 and all of Hassy’s X sensors (x1d, x1dm2, CFV-50c, CFV-II-50c) use a cropped version of the IQ3-100 sensor.
Note that the GFX100 has the IQ4-150‘s sensor but cropped.
The H6-100 uses the IQ3-100 sensor, which is a generation older than the GFX100/IQ4-150 sensor.
The GFX50 and all of Hassy’s X sensors (x1d, x1dm2, CFV-50c, CFV-II-50c) use a cropped version of the IQ3-100 sensor.
marchaers
Member
Hey! Yeah I'm always going to have my A7R III in the bag for anything more demanding speed wise. I've just made some test shots with the GFX100S and the X1D II and I do see off the bat that the X1D II wins in the color department. I am going to take the 100S to the test tomorrow and that's when I'm going to be able to look at the H6D-100C & GFX side by side.
I didn't enjoy shooting with the X1D as a first impression. The touch screen is great but the rest of the camera leaves more to be desired (it was a short test but enough to know). The GFX is a way more intuitive 'physical' experience. I guess it isn't getting easier as time passes lol.
Last edited:
Jon Warwick
Member
“ I've just made some test shots with the GFX100S and the X1D II and I do see off the bat that the X1D II wins in the color department”
I am not disputing that Hasselblad is very good at colors (admittedly I only have a limited experience with the X1D), but I query though what color means in digital …. for example, I have a GFX100S and the sheer variety of color options and “looks” that just the Fuji Camera profiles in ACR can achieve is remarkable. For example, their Classic Neg or Classic Chrome feel very different to me compared to (say) Standard Adobe. I personally often angle towards the Fuji ones.
I am not disputing that Hasselblad is very good at colors (admittedly I only have a limited experience with the X1D), but I query though what color means in digital …. for example, I have a GFX100S and the sheer variety of color options and “looks” that just the Fuji Camera profiles in ACR can achieve is remarkable. For example, their Classic Neg or Classic Chrome feel very different to me compared to (say) Standard Adobe. I personally often angle towards the Fuji ones.
marchaers
Member
@Jon Warwick Hey Jon! Sorry I might have not been very clear on the definition of color. For me the 'natural' look to skin tones is top of the list. In a way as we all know each manufacturer seems to process their Raw files in a certain way. I do heavy editing with colorgrading to get a specific look (which is something you're talking about as well). But in that case let's say we're talking about the final 'grading'. When I mention color I mostly talk about skin tones (wasn't clear before).
For example in my test the g100s pulls a lot of yellow into the skin tones which also goes for sony (Sony's much worse in that regard). Correcting that isn't as straight forward because pulling yellows towards the reds in any raw converter influences the entire image or the whole face. So that would mean local adjustments of skincolors (which I'd prefer not to do when working in batches). I don't know how they do it but brands like Canon and in this case the Hasselblad give a more natural/real looking result. What should be red is red and what's yellow looks yellow. Though again I don't know the science behind it but it feels (in my case) like there's more priority put into defining the difference between said reds and yellows. Which makes one camera better for skin tones than the other.
I am really liking the ergonomics of the 100S though and I do know that I can play around more with the files to see if there's a profile that suits my taste. So that might strongly close the gap between the 100C and the 100S tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see. Tomorrow I'll be heading to Rotterdam and will find that out. I'll report back here with my findings!
For example in my test the g100s pulls a lot of yellow into the skin tones which also goes for sony (Sony's much worse in that regard). Correcting that isn't as straight forward because pulling yellows towards the reds in any raw converter influences the entire image or the whole face. So that would mean local adjustments of skincolors (which I'd prefer not to do when working in batches). I don't know how they do it but brands like Canon and in this case the Hasselblad give a more natural/real looking result. What should be red is red and what's yellow looks yellow. Though again I don't know the science behind it but it feels (in my case) like there's more priority put into defining the difference between said reds and yellows. Which makes one camera better for skin tones than the other.
I am really liking the ergonomics of the 100S though and I do know that I can play around more with the files to see if there's a profile that suits my taste. So that might strongly close the gap between the 100C and the 100S tomorrow. We'll have to wait and see. Tomorrow I'll be heading to Rotterdam and will find that out
. I'll report back here with my findings!fuji has great profiles but if you are looking for neutral color, especially when it comes to skin tones and no color shifts in dark, dark shadow areas, hasselblad has the upper hand.
the 100mpix sensor in the fuji has PD-AF which obviously speeds up AF (but still nowhere near sony, canon,...) but can also lead to banding in dark shadow areas
really looking forward to your own findings and which files will work best for you. all these systems are pretty incredible and you really can't go wrong.
the 100mpix sensor in the fuji has PD-AF which obviously speeds up AF (but still nowhere near sony, canon,...) but can also lead to banding in dark shadow areas
really looking forward to your own findings and which files will work best for you. all these systems are pretty incredible and you really can't go wrong.
schuster
Active member
As would I. But, after more than 45 years of devout Hasselblad-ism, image stabilization has become a necessity for me. It breaks my heart, but conversion in my future.
I would be really surprised if IBIS would not be part of the X-system roadmap.