How successful have recent Hasselblad product introductions been?

[sjg284]

The X2D is a delight to use. Probably the easiest camera to use that I’ve had in the years since my Canon AE1 Program in the 80’s.
Oddly everyone complains it’s expensive and that the lenses are expensive when in fact both parts cost less than most Leica equivalents.

Right as a dual HB/Leica user, the lens comment rings true.

The other thing with Leica is that whichever lens you choose theres probably a slightly (or way more) expensive variant to tempt you to upgrade.. particularly in M mount.

Some even own multiple lenses in same focal length since there's the lightest/slowest model, the fastest/heaviest model, the APO/sharpest model.. oh and then there's the "character lens" purchase as well as re-upgrading for FLE, close-focus, etc.
Currently 4-5 lens choices in each of the 28/35/50 focal lengths, before you get into different finishes, buying previous versions, Voigtlander, etc ...

Leica fandom can certainly lead to the temptation to constantly cycle through gear chasing the perfect lens combination.

 

[Godfrey]

Hmm. I bought my 907x/CFVII 50c "50 years on the Moon" edition with the XCD 45P/4 and XCD 21/4. I added a used XCD 65/2.8 a year later. I'm perfectly happy with that kit.

I have a lot more lenses for the Leica M, but then I have a few of those bodies. Most of the Leica lenses I like are somewhat older and cheaper.

G

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Our Hasselblad sales increases from this period reflect their overall sales success.

I do wish Phocus could be improved - it is painful. As much as I am an advocate for people to use Phocus because I agree with Paul, it has that little extra 5% that you don't get in Adobe, whenever I sit down to use it, it's a grind on so many levels. But I don't know that they'll ever increase their investment there. I hope I am wrong.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Iceman1331]

What I would hope is that Hasselblad would make the next version of X2D or 907x to be able to switch between 50/100/150 mp for shooting similar to what Leica does.

 

[Paul2660]

907x won’t be able to do it as it has no IBIS. There is IBIS with the X2D so it could be done with firmware. Not holding my breath on that. I guess the 907x could do it if they upgraded the chip to 150MP and gave it cropping in camera.

Leica left multishot out of the SL3 with no word on if it would come later. SL2 and SL2-S have it and it’s a good implementation for higher resolution images when conditions allow.

Paul

 

[Iceman1331]

Paul, thx for your feedback. Doing so would add much more versatility to the future X2D or 907x, and would suite different shooting situations and the need for medium or higher resolution.

 

[sjg284]

907X with IBIS would be killer

 

[hcubell]

I do wish Phocus could be improved - it is painful. As much as I am an advocate for people to use Phocus because I agree with Paul, it has that little extra 5% that you don't get in Adobe, whenever I sit down to use it, it's a grind on so many levels. But I don't know that they'll ever increase their investment there. I hope I am wrong.
Steve Hendrix/CI

My experience is that if I do a very basic set of global adjustments on a file in both Phocus and LR, I may see a slight advantage with Phocus. However, as soon as I expand the scope of my adjustments to include local adjustments, LR is vastly superior in terms of the ultimate look of the file. The masking tools in Phocus for local adjustments are really primitive compared to those in LR. And, I do not expect that will ever change. There is no world in which it would make economic sense for Hasselblad to expend the resources to develop a raw converter that can compete with the features offered by Adobe in LR. I gather Phase is itself struggling to keep up.

 

[Paul2660]

It's strange that I, who have lambasted Phocus on this forum and other, would have to say that Lr, cannot really touch the quality of the image that Phocus can. It hurts to say this as I have Lr and all the local adjustment advances they have made. And the same toolset in Phocus as stated previously, is "primitive". I do disagree however that Hasselblad cannot take the resources to make a better overall solution. They have access to some of the best programers in the world with DJI. Hasselblad IMO is in a strange place right now, seemingly with great profits and growth, but unable to produce a modern piece of software and also ship on a reliable basis any of the more modern V glass.

Where Lr I feel misses the boat is in overall tonality. There is so much more in a Phocus image over the same file in Lr. Phocus has better shadow recovery also and by far better lens corrections, which with all the XCD glass is very important. Lr tends to go black with shadows and the recovery (shadow) is not as good. The tonality differences may seem slight to others, but at 100 MP sixes the differences really do matter.

Where Phocus really lets me down is on longer exposures, especially higher ISO ranges. The number of stuck pixels is huge and Phocus has NO correction for it and the X2D has no LENR. So you are left shooting a dark frame and manually correcting it. Here Lr can produce a cleaner image, albeit not as true to the best color.

Edit: Also, it's quite clear to me that Phocus 3.8.3 has performance issues over 3.7.6. The "updating" notice when you attempt to zoom into 100% of an image that has several layers on it, can take forever, to a point that I just close 3.8.3 and reopen 3.7.6, which will display the same image with same adjustments in about 20 seconds. However 3.7.6 has no lens adjustment for the 25mm and I am sure the 20-35.

I know I am a voice in the wilderness on this, and not a YouTuber that is going to tell the world all about the great products and solutions. Just a photographer who has realized that the Hasselblad True Color solution is not just marking speak, but actually is real.

Paul

 

[SrMphoto]

To get the best IQ with an MF camera, one has to shoot from a tripod. That said, my tripod use has decreased a lot.
On a tripod, IBIS is not needed, which eliminates corner issues caused by IBIS when used with wide angles.
On a tripod, one can often give more light to an MF camera in an equivalent setting, thus utilizing the higher DR that a larger sensor provides.
Therefore, a 907X on a tripod is a good alternative if ultimate IQ is required.

 

[SrMphoto]

What I would hope is that Hasselblad would make the next version of X2D or 907x to be able to switch between 50/100/150 mp for shooting similar to what Leica does.

Why would you want that? The DR/noise is the same, and you would lose a significant advantage of MF cameras: higher resolution.
Leica owners who use the lower resolution do it with older and weaker lenses, but I think that is a waste except that the files of lower resolution are smaller.
I wish Hasselblad cameras would generate lossless compressed 3FR instead of having to convert it to FFF at import. I wish X2D would generate 14-bit raw files when 14-bit is selected, thus creating smaller files.

 

[Kiwimac]

Not only is Ibis not needed on a tripod but Hasselblad specifically state that it should not be used on a tripod.

 

[f8orbust]

I know it's probably not got the most appealing front end - so many settings (which is both a good and a bad thing) - but if I owned a HB DB then RawTherapee would be my go to (especially if banding is an issue) until HB updates Phocus. Even then I might stick with RT, the latest version really is that good - e.g. you're not losing any of HB's 'secret sauce' wrt colour etc. and there are things (such as sharpening) which make Phocus look antiquated by comparison. BTW if you use a GFX-100, the latest version of RT (5.11) has a PDAF array filter option.

And in answer to the OP, I think HB is knocking it out of the park right now. They used to be synonymous with MF, but that association dimmed somewhat over the digital-era years. Not any more. The brand has such cachet and the cameras are so good wrt design, functionality, aesthetics, lenses etc. that when most folks think MF these days, they think Hasselblad.

 

[mristuccia]

Whatever enhancements HB could/would do in Phocus I sincerely hope that they don't switch to a proprietary-db based metadata archive like in LR and C1.
To me, it would really be a PITA. I have my own way of organizing things in the file system (which I consider way more reliable and transparent) and when I need to transfer something to another PC, a cloud folder or an USB stick I can simply copy and paste.

 

[dougpeterson]

Whatever enhancements HB could/would do in Phocus I sincerely hope that they don't switch to a proprietary-db based metadata archive like in LR and C1.
To me, it would really be a PITA. I have my own way of organizing things in the file system (which I consider way more reliable and transparent) and when I need to transfer something to another PC, a cloud folder or an USB stick I can simply copy and paste.

Capture One sessions can:
- sync metadata to XML in real time
- pack the metadata together with the raw (eip)
- sidecar the metadata in a subfolder

Between these three options there is not a metadata workflow I’m aware of that isn’t possible. What is it specifically you can’t do with C1 you want to do? Or maybe you just tried the default C1 Catalog (instead of the more portable C1 Session) and didn’t like it and moved on?

 

[mristuccia]

Capture One sessions can:
- sync metadata to XML in real time
- pack the metadata together with the raw (eip)
- sidecar the metadata in a subfolder

Between these three options there is not a metadata workflow I’m aware of that isn’t possible. What is it specifically you can’t do with C1 you want to do? Or maybe you just tried the default C1 Catalog (instead of the more portable C1 Session) and didn’t like it and moved on?

In the time it took you to list only those possibilities I already copied and pasted my files into a USB flash drive forwards and backwards.

Jokes aside, I know and used your above mentioned solutions, they don't work for me. Or, better, they work but they are cumbersome.
I use a rsync based system which keeps in sync subtrees of my archive on different media automatically. That's not possible with the solutions you've listed. I can simply copy and paste forwards and backwards based on the update date of the file, and keep everything in sync automatically.
And I don't like the idea of having sidecar files around that may conflict with what is written on the central database. Especially when one copies stuff forwards and backwards very often like me during travels.

I'm a computer engineer, so I suspect I've developed with the time a certain instinct on what may go wrong and what is cool but in the end will just waste more of my time without returning a great advantage. I do follow the KISS principle. But it may well be just old-age.

Anyway, to each his own.

 

[SrMphoto]

Whatever enhancements HB could/would do in Phocus I sincerely hope that they don't switch to a proprietary-db based metadata archive like in LR and C1.
To me, it would really be a PITA. I have my own way of organizing things in the file system (which I consider way more reliable and transparent) and when I need to transfer something to another PC, a cloud folder or an USB stick I can simply copy and paste.

With Lightroom, you can store files wherever you want and move them around on your disk from within. You can also save the editing operations in a sidecar file instead of the catalog.

 

[Kiwimac]

Our Hasselblad sales increases from this period reflect their overall sales success.

I do wish Phocus could be improved - it is painful. As much as I am an advocate for people to use Phocus because I agree with Paul, it has that little extra 5% that you don't get in Adobe, whenever I sit down to use it, it's a grind on so many levels. But I don't know that they'll ever increase their investment there. I hope I am wrong.


Steve Hendrix/CI

I agree. I took a fairly mundane image of a sunset the other day and then developed it twice. One in Phocus and again from scratch in LRC.
Not scientific but I aimed to get the same overall look in each.
The colours on the Phocus version were better and with smooth gradients. The LRC version looked at first glance similar but the colours were more banded and less smooth.