interesting X1d II sensor capabilities video.

[jduncan]

Hi,

I believe this is a nice work by someone that owns both Leicas and Hasselblad. He also knows about tiger sensors like the Phase One and H.

The other videos he has in both cameras are also interesting.

I am not related to him in any shape or form, it was the youtube algorithm that lead me to him.
I hope Hasselblad is close to modernize the platform, and do something about the H.

Best regards

 

[glenerrolrd]

I just watched this and its educational . Simple summary ....a larger physical sensor allows for larger pixel dimensions . Larger (fat pixels ) gather more light and can provide a larger dynamic range ,better color depth etc .

The Sony 50MP sensor blows away ANY 35mm sensor ....even Sonys own 60MP sensors . The trade off is speed in processing which affects AF ,frames per second and overall responsiveness .

A great sensor in a small and elegant form is what makes the HB X1D2 such a desirable camera . Biggest downside is that its SLOW ...so if you are looking for the "decisive moment" you will need extraordinary craft skills .

Fit the tool to its intended use .

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm. The only thing I find slow on my HB 907x is the autofocus, but I just focus manually and it becomes just as fast as any other camera I have.

 

[SrMphoto]

I just watched this and its educational . Simple summary ....a larger physical sensor allows for larger pixel dimensions . Larger (fat pixels ) gather more light and can provide a larger dynamic range ,better color depth etc .

The Sony 50MP sensor blows away ANY 35mm sensor ....even Sonys own 60MP sensors . The trade off is speed in processing which affects AF ,frames per second and overall responsiveness .

A great sensor in a small and elegant form is what makes the HB X1D2 such a desirable camera . Biggest downside is that its SLOW ...so if you are looking for the "decisive moment" you will need extraordinary craft skills .

Fit the tool to its intended use .

It is not the pixel size but the sensor size that matters when looking at the dynamic range. I am not sure how you measure "color depth".
Sony a7rIII and Sony a7rIV have the same dynamic range.
GFX 100 (same pixel pitch as a7rIV), has better DR than Sony a7rIV because of the larger sensor.
GFX 100 has better DR than X1D (same sensor size) because of dual conversion gain.

 

[astrostl]

The Sony 50MP sensor blows away ANY 35mm sensor ....even Sonys own 60MP sensors .

I think "blows away" is a significant overstatement. A lot has happened with FF sensors since the GFX/X1D/907X/etc. 44x33 sensor was designed in 2014 (!!), e.g. the original Sony A7 compared to the A7RIV or A7C. If an updated 44x33 were produced I'd expect a much bigger gap but still probably not into "blows away" territory.

 

[Godfrey]

Not much new in this presentation for me. "Blows away" ... what a silly way to describe the evaluation of two fine cameras.

 

[SrMphoto]

I think "blows away" is a significant overstatement. A lot has happened with FF sensors since the GFX/X1D/907X/etc. 44x33 sensor was designed in 2014 (!!), e.g. the original Sony A7 compared to the A7RIV or A7C. If an updated 44x33 were produced I'd expect a much bigger gap but still probably not into "blows away" territory.

I expect two things from an updated sensor: BSI (better corners for adapted lenses?), dual conversion gain (better DR at higher ISOs), and real 16-bit data. Otherwise, the current sensor is quite good

 

[astrostl]

I hoped for better high ISO performance from my 907x. ISO 200 is simply divine, though.

 

[Godfrey]

I hoped for better high ISO performance from my 907x. ISO 200 is simply divine, though.

Hmm. I've not had much to complain about even with ISO 3200. I guess we all have our different expectations and standards of what high ISO is and how it should look.

This thought led me to set up my camera for a simple test:
I did an "ISO test" sequence using a tri-tone chart and my bookcase, Aperture exposure mode, f/5.6, manual focus, with a custom white balance sampled from the gray part of the tri-tone chart. I stepped from ISO 100 to ISO 25600, all raw capture. I brought the nine exposures into LR Classic and examined them. On the initial sequence, I found ISO 3200 was about the limit of what I could tolerate in terms of noise and DR degradation. However, examining the histogram and using LR's exposure slider, I found I could better center the three spikes of the tri-tone chart with +1EV exposure compensation. So I replaced the card back into the camera and did the same sequence once more, this time using EV +1 in capture. The result was a marked improvement in the noise signature such that ISO 6400 was now more acceptable and even ISO 12800/25600 much smoother and theoretically usable under extreme lighting circumstances, when much reduced DR wouldn't be a problem.

This points out to me that the meter calibration is about a stop down from what one can get out of the sensor in practical terms using raw capture ... most likely to protect the quality of JPEG output, I would imagine. A similar test done with my Panasonic GX9, Leica CL, and Olympus E-M1 show similar "protective" under-exposure metering calibration on all of them, with the Panasonic being the least protective and the Leica CL being the most.

I then looked at the images with the in-camera display and review histogram: after a couple of tries, I found the "high exposure" warning flipped on with ISO 100 at EV +1.7 and re-shot the sequence at that setting once more. Reviewing them in-camera, I saw the High Exposure warning come up on about half of them, so I shot the sequence one more time with EV +1.3 setting.

The EV +1.3 setting nets the most data at high ISO settings, with even ISO 25600 capable of returning some satisfactory results once you apply noise reduction filtering, at the cost of a bit more dynamic range (top end saturation limits, essentially). Of course, you'll never get the same dynamic range and smoothness/detailing you do at ISO 100 to ISO 200, but for some subject matter it would prove quite acceptable (at least for me).

Fun stuff. I understand better now what I can get out of the 907x sensor and how to manipulate the taking settings to optimize my results for a given subject type.
Thanks for inspiring me to look further!

G

 

[astrostl]

Nice! Topaz Labs DeNoise AI has produced some incredible results for me.

 

[SrMphoto]

Hmm. I've not had much to complain about even with ISO 3200. I guess we all have our different expectations and standards of what high ISO is and how it should look.

This thought led me to set up my camera for a simple test:
I did an "ISO test" sequence using a tri-tone chart and my bookcase, Aperture exposure mode, f/5.6, manual focus, with a custom white balance sampled from the gray part of the tri-tone chart. I stepped from ISO 100 to ISO 25600, all raw capture. I brought the nine exposures into LR Classic and examined them. On the initial sequence, I found ISO 3200 was about the limit of what I could tolerate in terms of noise and DR degradation. However, examining the histogram and using LR's exposure slider, I found I could better center the three spikes of the tri-tone chart with +1EV exposure compensation. So I replaced the card back into the camera and did the same sequence once more, this time using EV +1 in capture. The result was a marked improvement in the noise signature such that ISO 6400 was now more acceptable and even ISO 12800/25600 much smoother and theoretically usable under extreme lighting circumstances, when much reduced DR wouldn't be a problem.

This points out to me that the meter calibration is about a stop down from what one can get out of the sensor in practical terms using raw capture ... most likely to protect the quality of JPEG output, I would imagine. A similar test done with my Panasonic GX9, Leica CL, and Olympus E-M1 show similar "protective" under-exposure metering calibration on all of them, with the Panasonic being the least protective and the Leica CL being the most.

I then looked at the images with the in-camera display and review histogram: after a couple of tries, I found the "high exposure" warning flipped on with ISO 100 at EV +1.7 and re-shot the sequence at that setting once more. Reviewing them in-camera, I saw the High Exposure warning come up on about half of them, so I shot the sequence one more time with EV +1.3 setting.

The EV +1.3 setting nets the most data at high ISO settings, with even ISO 25600 capable of returning some satisfactory results once you apply noise reduction filtering, at the cost of a bit more dynamic range (top end saturation limits, essentially). Of course, you'll never get the same dynamic range and smoothness/detailing you do at ISO 100 to ISO 200, but for some subject matter it would prove quite acceptable (at least for me).

Fun stuff. I understand better now what I can get out of the 907x sensor and how to manipulate the taking settings to optimize my results for a given subject type.
Thanks for inspiring me to look further!

G

You are discovering the benefits of ETTR ;-).
One should not risk blown highlights, but underexposing from the perfect ETTR image has the same SNR effect as shooting with a smaller sensor.
Jim describes it better: https://blog.kasson.com/using-in-caera-histograms-for-ettr/why-ettr/

 

[Godfrey]

You are discovering the benefits of ETTR ;-).
One should not risk blown highlights, but underexposing from the perfect ETTR image has the same SNR effect as shooting with a smaller sensor.
Jim describes it better: https://blog.kasson.com/using-in-caera-histograms-for-ettr/why-ettr/

LOL! Thanks, but I've been using ETTR notions for 40 years, since long before someone coined the term "ETTR". (I'm a mathematician, and spent my first years doing digital imaging at the Jet Propulsion Lab in the 1980s... The notions that form ETTR were an intrinsic part of my imaging efforts from way back then...)

The keys are understanding the behavior of a given sensor and metering system at the various ISO values, and learning how to put them to best use in a practical way. Every sensor has its limits, and every camera's metering system and histogram has its foibles in calibration and response. Once you understand those things and how they are , you can use ETTR effectively and gain as much data as possible for use in rendering your photos.

I'd been planning to calibrate the 907x sensor/metering system/histogram display as I did above the same way I have done with my other cameras for a long time, but I hadn't gotten to it with the confusion, craziness, and distractions of the past year. As this year is now started and moving forward, with many of those things settling down, I am gathering my energies anew to start doing more photography with these new tools at my disposal, and with full intent and energy.

G

 

[SrMphoto]

LOL! Thanks, but I've been using ETTR notions for 40 years, since long before someone coined the term "ETTR". (I'm a mathematician, and spent my first years doing digital imaging at the Jet Propulsion Lab in the 1980s... The notions that form ETTR were an intrinsic part of my imaging efforts from way back then...)

The keys are understanding the behavior of a given sensor and metering system at the various ISO values, and learning how to put them to best use in a practical way. Every sensor has its limits, and every camera's metering system and histogram has its foibles in calibration and response. Once you understand those things and how they are , you can use ETTR effectively and gain as much data as possible for use in rendering your photos.

I'd been planning to calibrate the 907x sensor/metering system/histogram display as I did above the same way I have done with my other cameras for a long time, but I hadn't gotten to it with the confusion, craziness, and distractions of the past year. As this year is now started and moving forward, with many of those things settling down, I am gathering my energies anew to start doing more photography with these new tools at my disposal, and with full intent and energy.

G

OK, but then I am surprised by your negative reaction in https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/hasselblad-x1d-ii.70135/post-836081. If you want to know about the limits and characteristics of a sensor you need to use a tool like RawDigger.

 

[Godfrey]

OK, but then I am surprised by your negative reaction in https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/hasselblad-x1d-ii.70135/post-836081. If you want to know about the limits and characteristics of a sensor you need to use a tool like RawDigger.

I've tried RD to see what it does, but abandoned it because it didn't do anything I needed: It's simply not of much value to me. I don't need to see graphs and numbers ... I need to see images and how things work. Nothing wrong with things like RawDigger if you want to understand the underpinnings of the technology and specific behaviors of the mechanisms. There is value in all kinds of instrumented measurements if that is your goal.

I'm not trying to build a synthetic aperture radar imaging system. The camera system I want to use is already built, I'm trying to make expressive photographs. Nothing informs me as well as test exposures demonstrating the sensor's behavior in use for that task. I already have the equipment at my disposal, I don't need to analyze its behavior any other way. No array of numbers and graphs is more informative for the purpose of making photographs.

G

 

[SrMphoto]

I've tried RD to see what it does, but abandoned it because it didn't do anything I needed: It's simply not of much value to me. I don't need to see graphs and numbers ... I need to see images and how things work. Nothing wrong with things like RawDigger if you want to understand the underpinnings of the technology and specific behaviors of the mechanisms. There is value in all kinds of instrumented measurements if that is your goal.

I'm not trying to build a synthetic aperture radar imaging system. The camera system I want to use is already built, I'm trying to make expressive photographs. Nothing informs me as well as test exposures demonstrating the sensor's behavior in use for that task. I already have the equipment at my disposal, I don't need to analyze its behavior any other way. No array of numbers and graphs is more informative for the purpose of making photographs.

G

You wrote in a previous post:
The keys are understanding the behavior of a given sensor and metering system at the various ISO values, and learning how to put them to best use in a practical way. ...

In order to understand the behavior mentioned, I use RawDigger's over-exposure warning and histogram (which are exact) to understand what the camera's histogram and overexposure warning (which are approximations) really mean.

 

[Godfrey]

I understand. If it works for you, and you're happy with the results, no further discussion necessary.

I don't need to look at RD's over-exp warning and histogram. I look at the images my tests and experiments make. The warnings and histogram displays just verify what my eyes see, and I've learned how to interpret what the camera and LR show me in that regard. I don't need "exact" ... Why do you? Exposure is not an exact science except in a very narrow niche of photographic uses.

G

 

[SrMphoto]

I understand. If it works for you, and you're happy with the results, no further discussion necessary.

I don't need to look at RD's over-exp warning and histogram. I look at the images my tests and experiments make. The warnings and histogram displays just verify what my eyes see, and I've learned how to interpret what the camera and LR show me in that regard. I don't need "exact" ... Why do you? Exposure is not an exact science except in a very narrow niche of photographic uses.

G

The reason why I use RawDigger instead of LrC is that Adobe's histograms are often misleading and I cannot judge the blown highlights by looking at an image in LrC.