Future of Hassy- Bleak or Bright?

[TechTalk]

After reading various comments comparing Hasselblad XCD lenses to Leica lenses, I decided to let the lenses speak for themselves with some comparisons of the XCD 35-75 mm zoom lens to some lenses from Leica. Since there are no directly comparable lens lines by both format size and camera type, I compared lenses designed for nearly identical format size (XCD and S) and I also compared two mirrorless lens designs of different format (XCD and SL). I noted that there were no direct comparisons in both camera type and format for Leica and Hasselblad.

I chose the XCD zoom to provide a bit of a handicap to Hasselblad, as zoom lenses are generally not expected to compare well to prime lenses. I also chose to compare the XCD zoom to an SL prime lens, with comparable angle of view, to provide a double handicap to Hasselblad of a zoom lens made for a larger format. Some comments followed those comparisons which took some exception to them.

It is just not a like for like comparison to compare mirrorless to mirror based lenses.

There is no "like for like comparison" to be had if you're comparing Leica and Hasselblad lenses. I made note of that fact earlier...

As for comparisons, apples, and oranges; for now, if someone wishes to compare Leica and Hasselblad XCD lenses, the comparison is either going to be between lenses made for mirrorless and SLR cameras of similar sensor size or comparison between lenses made for different format sizes...

You should compare H with S system.

You could, but they're lenses designed for different formats. You could also compare an XCD lens to a Leica SL lens (I did), but they're also lenses designed for different formats. Now, what you should do when comparing lenses, that I'll leave to you. But, you will not have a "like for like comparison" when comparing lenses designed for different formats.

The approximate image diagonals for different formats: 24 x 36 mm = 43 mm / 30 x 45 mm = 54 mm — 33 x 44 mm = 55 mm / 40 x 53.4 mm = 67 mm

...Comparing Hasselblad XCD lenses to smaller format Leica SL lenses would be an interesting challenge for Hasselblad; as generally speaking, lenses for larger formats will be at a disadvantage when compared to smaller format lenses. Similarly, zoom lenses are typically at a disadvantage when compared to prime lenses. Lenses covering larger format sizes or providing more than one focal length present additional design and production challenges.

Anyone with a basic understanding of optics knows that performance is completely different when you are close to the sensor plane and can skip the whole mirror box. That's almost an amateur mistake to be honest.

Lens designs for mirrorless and SLR cameras are different, but not necessarily "completely different". How different will vary depending primarily on the type of design and focal length. Two designs for comparable focal lengths could be very different or minimally different.

When comparing lenses designed for different formats, there is generally an advantage in image quality for a smaller format lens. A fact to be noted is, that along with the angle of coverage being different, the angle of view will also be different for lenses of the same focal length, but designed for different formats. The difference in angle of view should be accounted for when comparing lenses of different formats.

That's why when I compared the the XCD 35-75 mm zoom at 35 mm (77° angle of view) to the comparable Leica SL lens, I chose the SL 28 mm (75.4°angle of view) rather than the SL 35 mm (63.4° angle of view). Had I done otherwise, someone might have implied that I lacked a basic understanding of optics or was making an amateur mistake.

 

[KC_2020]

I chose the XCD zoom to provide a bit of a handicap to Hasselblad, as zoom lenses are generally not expected to compare well to prime lenses.

I'm confused by this statement. Particularly because of your efforts and proficiency at copying and pasting researching your posts.

Hassellbad has stated that the XCD 35-70 is the best lens they've ever designed, Delivering the same superb image quality from edge to edge as the XCD prime lenses.

All the in-depth reviews I've read confirm this.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

What’s your point now? Mirrorless and mirror based is a huge difference! You really can’t compare. All tech cam lenses outperform significantly lenses made for mirror based systems and mostly so with wide angles.

I said that in the end the comparison will be between the S4 lens lineup and X - which you can do in 2024 or 2025. I would expect the Leica lenses to surpass quite clearly all Hasselblad lenses. And comparing the latest zoom that just came out to a 15 year old design and then on top mirror based …

I just think that if you want the absolute best in lens quality chances are that you will find it with Leica.

That’s because it is Leica’s philosophy to put quality before costs as long as costs are not completely prohibitive; but this is special to Leica - they will put out lenses like the Summilux 90 which not a lot of people buy because of the huge difference compared to the price of the Summicron just because they can. I mean what would be really interesting is if Hasseblad also started to crank out lenses completely without compromise - I suppose if the market price point could be opened up to 8k or so then it would also look different in terms of X lenses ...

Although the H and S lenses don’t cover the same format, you can see in the data sheets that Leica goes up to 27mm in MTF charts - pls compare the 100 2.2 to the 100 2.0 - it is not even remotely close and Hasselblad shows performance up to 30mm. I think the image circle of the S lenses is not that small in fact and and this is a lot more fair comparison than next gen mirrorless vs mid 2000s mirror based designs.

Problem only will be that the new S lenses will be probably quite a bit more expensive than the X stuff - so in the end they are effectively also targeting a different demographic.

Everyone will have their place - Hassy has good price performance ratio and Leica will provide the benchmarks - probably wider aperture, apo chromatic, stellar metal build, etc. It is just a different approach to the market and has always been like that. I mean look at the Apo Summicron 50 for the M it costs like what 8k-9k - it very small and, exceedingly hard to produce and still is always in demand … I think the new S will have its place alongside Hassy and it will be nice to have an ultra premium option to get as well …

 

[TechTalk]

I chose the XCD zoom to provide a bit of a handicap to Hasselblad, as zoom lenses are generally not expected to compare well to prime lenses.

I'm confused by this statement. Particularly because of your efforts and proficiency at copying and pasting researching your posts.

Hassellbad has stated that the XCD 35-70 is the best lens they've ever designed, Delivering the same superb image quality from edge to edge as the XCD prime lenses.

All the in-depth reviews I've read confirm this.

Sorry that you're confused. Hasselblad did achieve remarkable image quality with the XCD 35-75 mm zoom. They're rightfully proud of its performance.

That's why I included specific adjectives to clarify the statement which seems to confuse you. Let me see if I can help...

I chose the XCD zoom to provide a bit of a handicap to Hasselblad, as zoom lenses are generally not expected to compare well to prime lenses.

Does the emphasis help to make my intent less confusing?

Zoom lenses are handicapped from the outset, to at least some degree in any comparison to primes, by the neccessary complexity of their design. It's why a zoom is generally not expected to compare well to prime lenses. That this zoom can and does compare well is an example of the ability that Hasselblad has to produce exceptional lenses.

If you read the comments that prompted the comparison in the first place, I selected what should be the weakest link in the lineup to show that even the zoom is a stellar performer. If the zoom is that good, that their prime lenses are comparable to the best is likely understood. I certainly didn't intend for the sentence you quoted to imply anything negative with regard to the lens or to give any offense to you. If you got that impression, I apologize.

 

[TechTalk]

What's your point again?

Again, what's your point TechTalk?

What’s your point now?

The point is that I have my own point of view. It may be different from your own or from others. But if it weren't for differing points of view, why would we be here? To listen to the echo?

If you don't see any point, that's fine. You're free to express your point of view as you like. I think that we all should.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Sorry that you're confused. Hasselblad did achieve remarkable image quality with the XCD 35-70 mm zoom. They're rightfully proud of its performance.

That's why I included specific adjectives to clarify the statement which seems to confuse you. Let me see if I can help...


Any less confusing for you now?

Zoom lenses are handicapped from the outset, to at least some degree in any comparison to primes, by the neccessary complexity of their design. It's why a zoom is generally not expected to compare well to prime lenses. That this zoom can and does compare well is an example of the ability that Hasselblad has to produce exceptional lenses.

If you read the comments that prompted the comparison in the first place, I selected what should be the weakest link in the lineup to show that even the zoom is a stellar performer. If the zoom is that good, that their prime lenses are comparable to the best is likely understood.

Now playing a bit to be like Techtalk here:

There is no mystique around primes - it is a widespread myth that a zoom must be worse than a prime. The reason why this often is the case is that manufacturers operate within certain constraints, namely costs in bringing a product to market.

As zooms have more lens elements to cover a range of focal lengths, more corrections and lens elements are necessary to have a uniformly high performance across the zoom range matching performance of equivalent primes. More elements, means more costs, means more compromises to hit a price point. How can the Canon 16-35 beat its prime equivalents if both are priced not too far apart? The Canon 35 1.4 prime is like 1.5k, the zoom also in the same ballpark.

In truth the effective contrast and control of aberrations in an optical system though can be controlled by modification of the size and amount of elements, the production tolerances - which have become better in the last years - more sophisticated lens design software, size and weight constraints, max. aperture, the choice of glass materials and ultimately the maximum production costs and margin requirements in view of all aforementioned levers.

So to say that it is a "handicap" to choose a zoom lens for comparison is again a display of a fundamental lack of understanding of lens design.

Anyone can design a great zoom lens and build one. Heck, if you open up the size / weight / costs constraints you get something like the Nikkor 55 0.95, arguably the best 0.95 lens in the market atm. Aberration control, sharpness, and vignetting are all fantastic. The lens though is humongous and costs significantly more than all other Z lenses and lacks autofocus. They don't sell well.

We are in the year 2022. The zoom was released two years ago, roundabout. It is not cheap. Ie it represents the latest available lens technology, but nothing special to take it as point of comparison. Just wait and see with what Leica comes back with once they enter the mirrorless MFD segment. They don't care so much about the price constraint and will leverage know-how garnered from the APO SL production line for the MFD equivalent lenses. It will be exciting to see some fast aperture APO MFD lenses - they will pop, be sharp edge to edge ... and cost an arm and a leg.

 

[TechTalk]

...Mirrorless and mirror based is a huge difference! You really can’t compare. All tech cam lenses outperform significantly lenses made for mirror based systems and mostly so with wide angles.

Actually, you really can compare. It's true that the biggest differences you will generally see, when you eliminate mirrors from the lens design equation, is with wide-angle lenses. Longer focal length lenses are more likely to have the rear element far enough from the flange, with either DSLR or mirrorless designs, that the additional air space created by having a mirror may be of little to no consequence — all depending on the individual lens, focal length, and design of course.

But, I'm still not very good at assuming things. So, let's look at some wide-angle lenses and see what they have to say for themselves. Let's see how wide-angle lenses made for DSLR cameras fare compared to a wide-angle tech cam lens. Here's how the Rodenstock HR Digaron-S 23 mm f/5.6, Leica Super-Elmar-S 24 mm f/3.5, and Hasselblad HCD 24 mm f/4.8 MTF charts look next to each other.

Please Note: Unlike the Leica and Hasselblad charts which show a maximum resolution of 40 lp/mm, the Rodenstock MTF chart includes graphs for 80 lp/mm. Also, the Rodenstock has a larger image circle to allow for movements, though the maximum sensor format recommended by Rodenstock is 33 x 44 mm or 37 x 49 mm with reduced movements. Although the Hasselblad HCD 24 mm has a large enough image circle to fully cover larger sensors, the MTF chart shown displays coverage for the 37 x 49 mm sensor size for which it is optimized.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Doesn't this more than anything show that Leica produces the finest optics? At 3.5 opening aperture it is already amazing. I have this lens and I am too everytime amazed what it does already at 3.5. Every time wow. f3.5 is vs. 4.8 or 5.6 is a world in optics. I regularly shoot it at 3.5 and it is almost completely free of aberrations. I've never shot the HCD lens, but its performance is lower than that of the Leica according to these charts.

The Rodenstock lenses have a significantly higher IC and are optimized not to be shot at open aperture, but a bit stopped down, ie f8 for the digarons and I think f16 for the Apo Sironar S line and on top the 23 HR achieves this performance at a significantly lower size and weight.

I test drove the 23 HR once for the XT and it was very sharp but with no movements on the IQ4 150 - the other thing which immediately struck me was that it was tiny, relatively speaking. It almost weighs half of what the Leica lens weighs in aperture mount and it is significantly smaller in the hand. You can fully wrap your hand around the 23, the super elmar is too big for that.

It goes to show if you need to work with 1.3kg of glass (Leica) vs. 0.6kg (Rodie) how the mirrorless design is a lot more efficient and on top covers a significantly wider IC. It also shows how far Leica is willing to go to create astounding performance despite the DSLR format, yielding optics which are so large that you need a 95mm filter thread The lens as a result achieves contrast exceeding 60% across the frame at f3.5!.

To me this comparison is spurious as it is like comparing the Nikkor 55 0.95 vs. the Noctilux 0.95 - there's no away around it that the Rodenstock achieves this level of performance at at an incredibly compact form factor and to me understanding they are also re-working this lens atm with a new wide-angle design to come out at one point as especially interior designers demand for a 20 something lens with shift.

You can copy as many MTF charts as you want - mirrorless if fundamentally easier to design for and to achieve great wide-angle performance with than a mirror-based lens. What Leica produced here with the f3.5 S24 is a pure optical tour de force and all people who try this lens on an S immediately realize that it is one of the gems of the system and by extension of Leica overall. It also shows that they won't refrain from making an almost 10k DSLR wide-angle for medium format which has 60% MTF across the format's frame wide-open even if this means putting out 1.3kg in optics. It even has nice bokeh when shot wide open.

 

[Satrycon]

MTF charts are useful, but don't tell one everything. Real life is 3D, shot in various light sources & distances. MTF charts are shot at one distance, in one light type, and are 2D. Many times a lens that doesn't look quite as good on the MTF test chart shows much better image quality in real life than the lens with the better graph.

Some manufacturers are using theoretical MTF, not MTF measured from the lens itself

 

[TechTalk]

There is so much ethereal smoke blown around online with regard to lens quality, I thought the lenses should be allowed to speak for themselves once in awhile thru the data sheets, thoughtfully provided by Hasselblad and Leica, and their MTF curves. As others before me have said regarding MTF charts... MTF charts won't tell you everything about a lens, but they will tell you quite a bit.

 

[ThdeDude]

MTF charts are useful, but don't tell one everything.

Bit like statistics, I presume.

 

[richardman]

Someone reported my reply re: my opinions on CCP as "hate speech". I would like to point out that my reply is directly because there are some subtle racism displayed in the thread. "Oh no, China made, BAD!!!"

Isn't it ironic that standing up to subtle racism is now hate speech. Well, be it.

Ban me or kick me out, but stop the subtle racism.

 

[jng]

Someone reported my reply re: my opinions on CCP as "hate speech". I would like to point out that my reply is directly because there are some subtle racism displayed in the thread. "Oh no, China made, BAD!!!"

Isn't it ironic that standing up to subtle racism is now hate speech. Well, be it.

Ban me or kick me out, but stop the subtle racism.

I, too, feel that there have been some subtle and frankly not-to-subtle China-bashing and various aspersions cast on DJI as a Chinese-owned company in this thread. I'm not putting this out there for debate, merely offering my own observations and perceptions. @richardman, you are a better man than I for calling this out.

In terms of useful information, IMHO this thread has run its course. I suggest that the OP or mods lock it and let everyone move on.

John Ngai

 

[buildbot]

Someone reported my reply re: my opinions on CCP as "hate speech". I would like to point out that my reply is directly because there are some subtle racism displayed in the thread. "Oh no, China made, BAD!!!"

Isn't it ironic that standing up to subtle racism is now hate speech. Well, be it.

Ban me or kick me out, but stop the subtle racism.

Does it tell you when someone reports your comment or did a mod tell you?
A little alarming to have that comment reported as hate speech and have that report be validated, Seems a little pro CCP (CCP ≠ China! Racism is 100% bad! )

 

[richardman]

A mod told me. He said he doesn't agree that it's hate speech (I guess that's why my reply is still there), but told me to tone down political tone, which I don't have a disagreement with, per se.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Someone reported my reply re: my opinions on CCP as "hate speech". I would like to point out that my reply is directly because there are some subtle racism displayed in the thread. "Oh no, China made, BAD!!!"

Isn't it ironic that standing up to subtle racism is now hate speech. Well, be it.

Ban me or kick me out, but stop the subtle racism.

Richard - I am totally against racism and if any of my comments in your view fell under this category I am sorry to hear that as it was not my intention. So pls. excuse if this is the case from your view as it saddens me to hear this and makes me reflect (I have no idea who reported you).

This said, I think one should be able to react to leaks posted on Weibo suggesting production in China is underway of the newest Hassy X camera and also discuss the context of the acquisition of Hasselblad by DJI and its potential repercussions on the old operations in Europe, etc. I wanted to discuss the business side of things / commercial approach of DJI and not any racial aspect which in my view does not make any sense to co-mingle. The initial question of the thread revolved around what is happening with Hassy which got the whole discussion started. When you replied to the thread I didn't know what to say as the language felt aggressive in the sense all of a sudden the CCP was involved and then the word "killing" was in it. I never thought for a second about the CCP to be honest.

I much prefer to talk about camera systems, lenses, etc. without going down the whole large context thing, ie who owns it, etc., but somehow the setup of the thread, the way the question was phrased led down to a weird path encompassing everything from MTF chart collages, patent applications, to job postings in Sweden and production facilities in Shenzen. I must admit I got also carried away reacting to some posts and then it became this huge thing.

I agree that the discussion has run its course and I hope everyone can enjoy the next Hasselblad camera or any other camera they may choose.

I think the future for Hassy is bright given what supposedly is coming and I will try to be more mindful around wording as to avoid any misinterpretation (meaning to pay attention to not sound generalizing in cases when it is more specific).

 

[richardman]

All good. Thanks

 

[Pieter 12]

I might have set off something when I said I preferred to buy from companies that treat their workers with some respect. Let's face it, in order to make something and to be able to price it competitively less than others, something has to be cut. Whether those cuts come from efficiencies, automation, material costs, clamping down on suppliers, share value or the boardroom or factory floor, something has to give. It's socio-economic, not racist. I did not single out or even mention China or the Chinese, this practice happens all over the world.

 

[drevil]

I much prefer to talk about camera systems, lenses, etc. without going down the whole large context thing, ie who owns it, etc., but somehow the setup of the thread, the way the question was phrased led down to a weird path encompassing everything from MTF chart collages, patent applications, to job postings in Sweden and production facilities in Shenzen. I must admit I got also carried away reacting to some posts and then it became this huge thing.

And i think this is a good reason to end this thread, a X2D is on the horizon so i think the future looks more bright than bleak.
This thread went way too off road.

End of discussion