It is Finally Here, 907x 100c

[P. Chong]

Quite different. The 9 exposure limit is one. To get exposure times of up to minutes, it is not easy, perhaps even not possible on the GFX as you run into this limit. I frequently shoot upwards of 300 frames on the IQ4 Frame Averaging. Works like a charm all the time. So to me, the GFX is only useful for superimposing multiple images (like multiple exposures on a film camera), but the IQ4 is a tool to make very long exposures without ND filters.

Another is the setup. Easy on the IQ, and fully automatic once you press the shutter and let it do its magic. On the GFX, setup is easy, but it is manual, so you need to click each of the 9 exposures.

How so? I realize it's not as good, but it does seem to be able to do it. It is just averaging frames, which is ~2 flops per pixel X 100MP = 200Mflops = .2Gflops of work per shot which is nothing for a modern CPU. Unless there is some secret sauce the IQ4 has I am missing? Besides being a better implementation. Though, the Fuji multi exposure mode seems like it has more features than frame averaging, just more limited and with weird Fuji ergonomics like clicking each time...

 

[buildbot]

Quite different. The 9 exposure limit is one. To get exposure times of up to minutes, it is not easy, perhaps even not possible on the GFX as you run into this limit. I frequently shoot upwards of 300 frames on the IQ4 Frame Averaging. Works like a charm all the time. So to me, the GFX is only useful for superimposing multiple images (like multiple exposures on a film camera), but the IQ4 is a tool to make very long exposures without ND filters.

Another is the setup. Easy on the IQ, and fully automatic once you press the shutter and let it do its magic. On the GFX, setup is easy, but it is manual, so you need to click each of the 9 exposures.

Oh, wow I feel kind of slow now, of course being able to sample over a few hundred shots is way different for an ND filter like effect. Great explanation, thank you!

 

[SrMphoto]

Oops. Missed the no IBIS. So tripod or wide angle only.

No really.
Leica M11 has the same pixel pitch as CFV 100C, so it has the same camera shake issue. Leica M11 owners are shooting handheld "en masse."

 

[diggles]

How so? I realize it's not as good, but it does seem to be able to do it. It is just averaging frames, which is ~2 flops per pixel X 100MP = 200Mflops = .2Gflops of work per shot which is nothing for a modern CPU. Unless there is some secret sauce the IQ4 has I am missing? Besides being a better implementation. Though, the Fuji multi exposure mode seems like it has more features than frame averaging, just more limited and with weird Fuji ergonomics like clicking each time...

my understanding is that the fuji is for multiple exposures on a single image, where frame averaging gives you the effect of a long exposure.

 

[SrMphoto]

The P1 IQ5-200 would have double resolution and value added tech features around dynamic range, connectivity, long exposure for 5.5x the price.

The new Hassy back seemingly also only has 15 stops. You will have more DR on the big Phase gear.

It’s a nice tiering which makes sense and if you can afford the big guns you will also get more features.

It’s a nice evolution of the market.

Going from 100MP to 200MP does not double resolution as it is measured in linear dimension. It increases the resolution by 41%.
We know that the larger sensor has more DR than a smaller sensor (using similar technology). P2P measures one stop more max DR with IQ4 150MP.

 

[SrMphoto]

Is the multi exposure mode not frame averaging? https://fujifilm-dsc.com/en-int/manual/gfx100s/taking_photo/multi-exp/

On stabilization - I actually might switch out my gfx100s to this! (Sorry Capture Int, just asked for a quote for a 260 trade in, should have asked about a gfx one!). The sensor floats around too much on a tripod, making my long telephoto landscapes blurry.

Yes, but most cameras, like Fuji, generate only JPEGs when using multiple exposures.
Only Olympus (up to 64) and Phase One do in-camera frame averaging and produce a raw file.

 

[MGrayson]

No really.
Leica M11 has the same pixel pitch as CFV 100C, so it has the same camera shake issue. Leica M11 owners are shooting handheld "en masse."

Totally agree about the Leica M's. I don't need IBIS for capture so much. But for magnified manually focusing a longer lens, I find it essential. And with an adapted lens that requires the electronic shutter, IBIS is necessary to keep verticals from wobbling. Still, looks like a great piece of kit!

 

[SrMphoto]

Totally agree about the Leica M's. I don't need IBIS for capture so much. But for magnified manually focusing a longer lens, I find it essential. And with an adapted lens that requires the electronic shutter, IBIS is necessary to keep verticals from wobbling. Still, looks like a great piece of kit!

I agree.
Leica has EVF/LCD stabilization, which helps a lot with magnified MF. However, CFV 100c has pretty good AF.
The 100MP sensor has a faster readout in 14-bit mode than the 50MP sensor (166ms vs. 250ms), but IBIS would help with rolling-shutter-induced wobbling.

 

[Phase V]

Looks like this back can save you from the dark frame nightmare my Iq3 provides me by doing some
extensive stacking but then the datasheet says:
- Flash can be used at all shutter speeds. Mechanical shutter only.
So, no flash with ES? WTF??

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Going from 100MP to 200MP does not double resolution as it is measured in linear dimension. It increases the resolution by 41%.
We know that the larger sensor has more DR than a smaller sensor (using similar technology). P2P measures one stop more max DR with IQ4 150MP.

There's no clear cut rule to say is defined linearly. It is effectively double the pixels and so double the resolution and I'd even say the most common perspective on it, at least for the consumer. Most people walking into the store will be confronted with the 50 and 100 megapixel option and think of the latter as being double the resolution. No one is then deep diving of the relative perceptive impact of that resolution difference.

I may state in a second step the linear increase; for example, moving from 150 to 200 would be 15% linearly on the big chip. Look it up, I've mentioned this multiple times in the context of the IQ5 rumours.

Agree that linear increase is important and a truer view on how to look at sensors relatively, as it indicates the magnitude of the necessary pixel pitch decrease, relative amount of additional room to crop to get the same resolution and / or whether it is large enough of a difference so you can see a notable difference - most importantly - when interpolating (ie bicubic or AI uprez).

I'd say that 41% is very notable, 15-20% notable, less than 10% less so.

In the case of a 200 megapixel IQ5 I think it would be enough for me to upgrade from an IQ4.

 

[Ben730]

This new back seems to be wonderful. I have been waiting a long time for a back illuminated "cropped MF" sensor.
The 32 HR with IQ3 100 is too bulky for me, so I mostly use my IQ1 50 with the 23 HR.

The only hurdle is compatibility with Capture One.
The software has become more important for my work than the camera.
Are the H series lenses compatible (AF + shutter)?
Is tethering stable with Hasselblad?

 

[P. Chong]

you can use H lenses via the H adapter. A bit bulky but works. And depending on which lenses, may or may not have autofocus. Aperture setting and leaf shutter is always available.

This new back seems to be wonderful. I have been waiting a long time for a back illuminated "cropped MF" sensor.
The 32 HR with IQ3 100 is too bulky for me, so I mostly use my IQ1 50 with the 23 HR.

The only hurdle is compatibility with Capture One.
The software has become more important for my work than the camera.
Are the H series lenses compatible (AF + shutter)?
Is tethering stable with Hasselblad?

 

[guphotography]

The only hurdle is compatibility with Capture One.
The software has become more important for my work than the camera.

Same here, if it were for capture one compatibility, I would have ordered one yesterday.

I'm hoping to try one out with extensive shooting for a day, and put phocus through pace, see how I get on with it.

Or figure out a workflow to combine phocus and capture one, and see how the results compare.

As you said, the sensor would be wonderful, especially for sk lenses without colour cast.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I haven't looked into the workflow recently – am I right that you can also skip Phocus and go via Lightroom (which is still not as nice as C1), but then you don't have the HNCS?

Gunner - would be nice to hear your thoughts on workflow once you've tested it. Going from back to Phocus to C1 seems a bit convoluted, unfortunately.

I am mainly interested in this back becaue of the V system. I find it infinitely cool to use an old V 500 series camera.

 

[bshigeta]

The only hurdle is compatibility with Capture One.
The software has become more important for my work than the camera.

I'm assuming you can import a converted CFV 100c .dng into C1 with the exiftool trick as done with the X2D files. Although that would be a hassle without some sort of batch process and I'm curious if the HR profiles for lens corrections in C1 would apply correctly.

But then I would still need a third party hacked X-Shutter connection cable solution...

 

[tenmangu81]

Same here, if it were for capture one compatibility, I would have ordered one yesterday.

I'm hoping to try one out with extensive shooting for a day, and put phocus through pace, see how I get on with it.

Or figure out a workflow to combine phocus and capture one, and see how the results compare.

As you said, the sensor would be wonderful, especially for sk lenses without colour cast.

Doesn't work quite well. If you convert your files into .dng from Phocus, you loose the Hassy wonderful colours. If you convert them into TIFF, you loose processing flexibility.... No workaround.

 

[tenmangu81]

I haven't looked into the workflow recently – am I right that you can also skip Phocus and go via Lightroom (which is still not as nice as C1), but then you don't have the HNCS?

Gunner - would be nice to hear your thoughts on workflow once you've tested it. Going from back to Phocus to C1 seems a bit convoluted, unfortunately.

I am mainly interested in this back becaue of the V system. I find it infinitely cool to use an old V 500 series camera.

You miss HNCS, right, but you get very, very close colours with Lightroom, in most cases. The difference is that LR input profiles use two illuminants, while HNCS uses more and, in complex lighting conditions, could give better results.

 

[bshigeta]

don't make a habit of it, but I have used the Electronic Shutter of the X2D at relatively slow shutter speeds (below 1/40th) hand held on static subjects without issue.

If something is moving however, that's a limitation.

Is there a way to intentionally kick the camera down to a lower bit rate using a high speed mode similar to the lower bit rate files on the GFX100II? I'm wondering if I could reduce the rolling shutter enough for the motion of a walking person or passing car to later composite back onto a full 16bit frame.

 

[Ben730]

Doesn't work quite well. If you convert your files into .dng from Phocus, you loose the Hassy wonderful colours. If you convert them into TIFF, you loose processing flexibility.... No workaround.

The wonderful colors of Hasselblad are often mentioned. I have no experience with them.
When I'm shooting, I usually need accurate colors, which is usually possible with my Nikon, Sony, Fuji + Phase One devices.
If there are problems, color correction in Capture One or x-rite helps.
Are the "wonderful" colors from Hasselblad more accurate than others?
I have never seen a convincing example.

 

[MGrayson]

The wonderful colors of Hasselblad are often mentioned. I have no experience with them.
When I'm shooting, I usually need accurate colors, which is usually possible with my Nikon, Sony, Fuji + Phase One devices.
If there are problems, color correction in Capture One or x-rite helps.
Are the "wonderful" colors from Hasselblad more accurate than others?
I have never seen a convincing example.

I don't know if this will convince anyone of anything. When I received the X2D, I took it out with the Leica S3 to compare "look and feel". The S3 with the S24 was my gold standard. I wanted to see how much I was giving up going with the X2D and XCD 21.

Here's the Leica


And the Hassy


While post-processing and profiles are a major factor in the look, I was shocked at how close the renderings were. (The X2D image is warmer - easily adjusted.) Could this be done with any camera and simple post-processing? Maybe, but I was never able to get the same look from Fuji. I'd guess that Phase One would be more accurate, but I'd no more want accurate color than I'd want a music performance following the score exactly. It is the artists job to make a performance - or a photograph - captivating.

Anyway, I was much reassured by this experiment. Any given photo, I would probably slightly prefer the S3, but the X2D's usability, especially at 90mm and wider, makes up for it.

Matt