Who is the X2D for?

[Doppler9000]

Thanks for this post. It’s probably closest to my general hunch about which system I should add. I also travelled with my sony and 645z setup (through the Himalayas with solar panel) and it was definitely a pain switching between the systems. I did get shots I was happy with from both, the MF files always printed nicer though.

If you haven’t already, you should visit Jim Kasson’s blog. He has done extensive testing with the GFX and Hasselblad cameras.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Regards the "full frame" stuff, thanks Steve (and everyone). I think the term is only truly relevant for 35mm format cameras and sensors, personally, because there are simply too many different "medium format" (aka 120/220 roll film) camera formats out there (645, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, et al). For me, the 'definitive' full frame 120 roll-film format camera has been and always will be the Rolleiflex TLR and Hasselblad SLR 6x6 cameras, with a full-frame film format of 56x56 mm. And this despite the fact that I've owned and used more 6x4.5 and 6x9 cm format film cameras ...

You missed my favorite Hasselblad X lens, the (evidently now discontinued) XCD 21mm f/4. I don't use it so much as I use the 45P or 65, but it *is* my favorite, just like the Hasselblad SuperWide with Zeiss Biogon 38mm f/4.5 was always my favorite film Hassy...

But it's not worth going on about the full-frame nomenclature, I agree.

G

Yes, many formats, but of course that’s why you’d say “Full Frame 645”. There’s only one possible film-referenced format that a medium format digital sensor solution could reference anyway.

I didn’t miss the 21mm XCD lens, I intentionally left out any lenses that were formally discontinued, ie; no longer able to be purchased new. This includes the more recently discontinued 120 XCD.

Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[hcubell]

I don't think you can learn much of value from reading test reports about camera systems. This is particularly true with the X2D. You really need to use it to photograph what you actually photograph and the way you actually shoot. Then, you need to take the files and process them. Does the shooting experience match your needs? Do the files generally produce a "look" in terms of tonal and color relationships that speak to the look that you want To see in your photographs?
The subjective experience of photographing with the X2D is fundamentally different from photographing with a GFX or any Japanese camera for that matter. The X2D offers relatively few buttons and very limited options for customization. It's really a digital version of a Mamiya 7 with good though by no means state of the art AF. It has the best user interface of any camera I have ever used. That is VERY important to me. I hate using cameras that require 500 page books or instruction manuals to set up. I hate using a camera that requires me to reacquaint myself with the button and menu setup if I haven't used it for a month. I have a camera like that. A Sony A7RV. Many photographers either prefer deep menus with hundreds of optional settings, and lots of buttons to program. Other photographers are indifferent. I am not. I want a camera that just gets out of my way and doesn't require me to be constantly reminding myself which button does what and how to adjust the relatively few options that I may want to adjust from time to time. This is not what I want to be thinking about when I am trying to figure out the best exposure, focus and composition for a photograph. One thing I am sure of is that at some point I will inadvertently press the wrong button somewhere and a number of files will be different from what I intended. It happens to the most technologically sophisticated as well. https://www.josephholmes.com/news/2022/3/21/the-worst-firmware-design-error-i-ve-ever-seen
The other thing about the X2D that is different is the "look" of the files. I have used a GFX and I have a Sony A7RV. I find the "look" of the Hasselblad files different from the "look" of those other camera files. There is a subtlety and sophistication in the tonal and color relationships in the Hasselblad files that just really appeals to me. The files can be colorful without harsh saturation or contrast. That's just my opinion. Is that merely a matter of spinning around a few adjustments in LR or C1 to get a GFX or Sony file to the same place? I don't think that would be true for me. I am not a professional digital tech. I know I couldn't adjust a Velvia file to look like a Portra negative file. Fuji does offer film simulations, but I personally think they bear little resemblance to their film counterparts. The Astia simulation doesn't look anything like my Astia transparencies.
Depending upon your specific needs, the GFX system may be a better solution. It's much closer in its functionality to a FF camera. The AF is hardly at the level of a Sony A1, but it is more capable than the AF of the X2D. The X2D AF is accurate, but not quick and there is no AFC. Both the X2D and the GFX systems offer truly excellent lenses. In real world use, I think any differences are very marginal. However, the GFX lens lineup is much broader. Zooms, true telephotos, and TS lenses. I don't need them.

 

[rdeloe]

I want a camera that just gets out of my way and doesn't require me to be constantly reminding myself which button does what and how to adjust the relatively few options that I may want to adjust from time to time.

I think that's a very fair point. Usability is so important, and so personal.

For what it's worth, I almost never go into the menus in my GFX 100S. Long ago I set up the things I need on the various control points (buttons, screen swipes). I operate them almost entirely by muscle memory, and don't have to think about what I'm doing. To be fair though, I'm also not exploiting a significant chunk of the capabilities of the camera. If you asked me to use eye autofocus, I'd miss the shot because I'd be figuring out how that works!

The other thing about the X2D that is different is the "look" of the files. I have used a GFX and I have a Sony A7RV. I find the "look" of the Hasselblad files different from the "look" of those other camera files. There is a subtlety and sophistication in the tonal and color relationships in the Hasselblad files that just really appeals to me. The files can be colorful without harsh saturation or contrast. That's just my opinion. Is that merely a matter of spinning around a few adjustments in LR or C1 to get a GFX or Sony file to the same place?

When the CFV 100C came out, I grabbed RAW files and developed them in Phocus and Lightroom. I do like the look of the Hasselblad files and would have not trouble working with them if I picked up a CFV 100C. I didn't like using Phocus, but I was happy to see that I could get to almost the same place in Lightroom without too much trouble.

I'm of two minds on whether I'd be happier and better off to leave it to Hasselblad to tell me how the world looks in colour with their "Natural Color Solution", or figure it out myself. I don't use Adobe's interpretations of Fuji's film simulations. I tried making my own, but am mostly happier with some custom profiles I purchased from Colin Walker of Color Fidelity. I say mostly because greens are my nemesis. I'd be curious to shoot a Hasselblad alongside my Fuji one of these days. If the greens resonate with me, that might be enough to flip me over.

 

[mristuccia]

I think too many people say they prefer HB's colours for this to be just a subjective thing.
Either it is a massive suggestiveness, or there is something true about it, and I tend to believe the latter.

I often use unrealistic colours in my images, but even in such cases I find it far easier to distort colours the way I want if I start with an Hasselblad RAW development rather than with another brand.

 

[rdeloe]

I think too many people say they prefer HB's colours for this to be just a subjective thing.
Either it is a massive suggestiveness, or there is something true about it, and I tend to believe the latter.

I often use unrealistic colours in my images, but even in such cases I find it far easier to distort colours the way I want if I start with an Hasselblad RAW development rather than with another brand.

Not to be too pedantic but I'd say that preferences for colour are about as subjective as it gets!

I do understand your general point though. I would be very happy indeed if I had a camera that produced the colours the way I liked them right from the start. Would a Hasselblad do that for me? I do not know. I'd love to find out (but there's the small matter of the cost...).

Having said that, outside of a studio with controlled lighting, there are so many factors that determine colour that I would be very surprised if I didn't face the same challenges with a Hasselblad as I do with my Fuji.

 

[Godfrey]

...
I don't think you can learn much of value from reading test reports about camera systems. ...
{...snip...}
I want a camera that just gets out of my way and doesn't require me to be constantly reminding myself which button does what ...

I've been saying that about camera test reports and specifications for decades.

(bolded) This. It's why I like my Leica Ms and my Hasselblads. I spend little time playing with camera configurations and concentrate on making photographs.

G

 

[hcubell]

I think that's a very fair point. Usability is so important, and so personal.

For what it's worth, I almost never go into the menus in my GFX 100S. Long ago I set up the things I need on the various control points (buttons, screen swipes). I operate them almost entirely by muscle memory, and don't have to think about what I'm doing. To be fair though, I'm also not exploiting a significant chunk of the capabilities of the camera. If you asked me to use eye autofocus, I'd miss the shot because I'd be figuring out how that works!



When the CFV 100C came out, I grabbed RAW files and developed them in Phocus and Lightroom. I do like the look of the Hasselblad files and would have not trouble working with them if I picked up a CFV 100C. I didn't like using Phocus, but I was happy to see that I could get to almost the same place in Lightroom without too much trouble.

I'm of two minds on whether I'd be happier and better off to leave it to Hasselblad to tell me how the world looks in colour with their "Natural Color Solution", or figure it out myself. I don't use Adobe's interpretations of Fuji's film simulations. I tried making my own, but am mostly happier with some custom profiles I purchased from Colin Walker of Color Fidelity. I say mostly because greens are my nemesis. I'd be curious to shoot a Hasselblad alongside my Fuji one of these days. If the greens resonate with me, that might be enough to flip me over.

I always start reviewing files from my X2D in LR, because that's where I catalog them. If I find a file that I am intrigued by, which does happen occasionally, I will start processing it in LR. In the past, if I then decided I had photograph that was worthy of a print, I would generally see if the rendering was any better in Phocus. However, I rarely do that anymore. The color rendering in LR for Hasselblad files is, to me, so close to Phocus and the tools in LR for selective adjustments are now so powerful compared to the primitive tools in Phocus, that I almost always would stick with the LR version.

 

[mristuccia]

Not to be too pedantic but I'd say that preferences for colour are about as subjective as it gets!

But when preferences reach a common consensus they usually became an accepted truth.
Let's call it the objectiveness of the subjectiveness.

(Not that I like it when it happens...)

 

[tenmangu81]

Not to be too pedantic but I'd say that preferences for colour are about as subjective as it gets!

I do understand your general point though. I would be very happy indeed if I had a camera that produced the colours the way I liked them right from the start. Would a Hasselblad do that for me? I do not know. I'd love to find out (but there's the small matter of the cost...).

Having said that, outside of a studio with controlled lighting, there are so many factors that determine colour that I would be very surprised if I didn't face the same challenges with a Hasselblad as I do with my Fuji.

Hasselblad gives me colours that are a very good starting point for post-processing. This is not what I got with my previous digital Canon and Leica. But, to be honest, I don't tweak colours very often with my HB, as I prefer natural colours. I had to do it with Canon and Leica, though, if I wanted to be closer to "natural" colours. What are "natural" colours is an other question

 

[lookbook]

... there is virtually no photo that shows "natural colours"!
but of course there is a taste for colour and, like every taste, this is a result of what i am used to or have learned.
this is what we call flavour formation!

in my opinion, the formation of taste in colours is strongly influenced by apple and the iphone.
just sweetish!

and if you like the sweet taste, you will prefer it and the basic setting of your hasselblad!

 

[mristuccia]

Natural colors for me are colors that look like the real scene you've experienced with your eyes. Especially skin tones, for example, to which we are very sensitive.
You may say one cannot know how another person perceives the same scene, cause it is subjective.
That's right, but if a color science is able to render an image realistically as a starting point, then everyone perceives it in the same subjective way as he did when he looked at the real scene.
Subjectivity is maintained in the same original (and unknown) proportion across different viewers, and all of them will perceive the image colors as "natural".

Guys I'm developing a theory here. Let me write a book as soon as possible and finally became famous.

 

[Paul2660]

I also tend to start X2D conversions in LR and if I find a file that is special I may attempt a work up in Phocus. However I tend to prefer to do the vast majority of work on a file in the raw format not as a tiff. I also use a lot of masking and shoot many multiple image panos. Working on these can be so easy in LR with its ability to copy those adjustments over to another file. Not possible in Phocus. Where Phocus seems to work better is on shadow recovery. LR always seems to make the shadows too black and contrasting and recovery is not as smooth as Phocus.

This one area where C1 wins hands down with their shadow recovery but that’s a no deal for Hasselblad. It’s too bad the two companies can’t get over the petty issues and come to some form of working agreement for support. After all C1 is a separate company from P1 (obviously not really separate) now and adding support for H would just grow their user base. However C1 still lacks the basic masking tools like select sky.

Paul

 

[larkis]

https://www.josephholmes.com/news/2022/3/21/the-worst-firmware-design-error-i-ve-ever-seen

This is wild. Shows how typical engineers are not UX designers. I remember being slightly confused by the GFX menus when I first played with it as well, then you just learn it and it’s fine. Still ugly, essentially like a PC BIOS. Sony is also to deep, especially if you are trying to make your custom setup. HB I found easy and nice from the get go but also maybe to simplistic? Would be nice to be able to customize your own setting screen or omit certain views from the display overlay. I basically want no overlays, or histogram. Don't like having to pass the other two options to get to where I want.

My garmin bike computer lets me customize my “views” and the order they appear in. Not sure why cameras have not added this functionality.

 

[rdeloe]

This is wild. Shows how typical engineers are not UX designers. I remember being slightly confused by the GFX menus when I first played with it as well, then you just learn it and it’s fine. Still ugly, essentially like a PC BIOS. Sony is also to deep, especially if you are trying to make your custom setup. HB I found easy and nice from the get go but also maybe to simplistic? Would be nice to be able to customize your own setting screen or omit certain views from the display overlay. I basically want no overlays, or histogram. Don't like having to pass the other two options to get to where I want.

My garmin bike computer lets me customize my “views” and the order they appear in. Not sure why cameras have not added this functionality.

Fuji lets you put as little or as much as you want on the various screens. You can make them cluttered or spare, and if you prefer you can have nothing but the image in the EVF and LCD while you're working. The sub-monitor is also very handy for displaying just the basic information you want. The implementation can definitely be improved. For example, there are some views I never use; I'd like to be able to take them out of the rotation when switching between views.

Every one of these systems is a big bundle of compromises. For example, does Hasselblad allow you to identify up to six adapted lenses and write their name and focal length in EXIF? I know you can do it after the fact, but that's extra work. I only use adapted lenses, and I need to know which image is which lens, so not having that functionality would concern me. Ditto the ability to leave voice memos. Many people will never use this tool, but I use it constantly. On Thursday after a full day's work I came back with 322 RAFs and 73 voice memos where I recorded information I needed later while processing. The voice memos are linked to the corresponding files in Lightroom. For me, this is not "nice to have"; it's mission critical for my workflow.

 

[MGrayson]

I used a GFX100 as my primary camera for a year. Half the time I tried to change the shutter speed, it was locked, and after minutes of frustration, I'd have to open the manual and find out how to unlock it. Why shutter speed would be locked in shutter priority mode, I could never figure out. The rear dial wouldn't turn without activating the "wheel push" effect, so I had to gently ease it along with a thumbnail. No amount of feature simplification made that camera less than a nightmare to handle in the field. IBIS was great. The lenses were good to spectacular. I hated every second with it.

Perhaps if I had found an expert to help me set up the camera, it would have been bearable. When I finally gave up and went back to the primitive low resolution Leica S(007), it was a great relief.

I'm delighted that the GF system exists. It was, and is, a big technological step forward, and it makes a lot of photographers very happy. This just highlights how individual this process is.

Matt

 

[sjg284]

I think like Mac vs Desktop Linux vs Windows, there's a bit of a technical bell curve where people on both tails actually prefer a simpler UX.

That is - I am software engineer for a living, I spend my paid time fiddling, configuring, debugging, patching, etc.

My hobbies are generally an escape from this. I am more into gardening and woodworking than I am into writing custom GPU drivers or homebuilding a PC.
So my camera preferences kind of follow that pattern. Leica and Hasselblad give me a no fuss UX that do what I want simply.
There's lots of things the systems don't do, but I don't shoot sports, BIF, etc so I don't really care.

I first started shooting film, manual focus, manual metered. For me Leica/Hasselblad strike a nice balance of automation, simplicity, and leaving me in control.
Likewise they generally output well metered, proper color raw images straight out of camera so I also do not need to spend as much time in editors getting it right.
Sort of like picking NPS vs Astia vs Provia vs Portra back in the day.

I've generally found Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji to be overwhelmingly technical systems that I don't have interest in learning.
They are also more general purpose do-everything kit if you must be so equipped.

To each their own, but that's basically my mindset, background and decision making process.

 

[rdeloe]

Paradoxically, I think the people who say they like Hasselblad for the simplicity are not on the margin!

Does anyone really prefer unnecessary confusion and complexity? Would anyone really choose a complex, difficult to remember and confusing piece of equipment over a simple and understandable piece of equipment, when both accomplish the same functions? Most of us just want things to work, and to do the things we want them to do.

The catch is that once you start stripping away complexity to pare things down to a simple set of controls, you've inevitable stripped away something that someone actually does value. I offered a case in point above: I would love a much simpler user interface and design on my GFX 100S, but don't take away my ability to add lens information into EXIF and record voice memos!

If a tool is going to be complex, with lots of control points and menu options, I need it to also allow for simplicity. In other words, let me set things up the way I like, and then let me ignore everything else I don't need. At that point, it doesn't matter anymore whether there's too much complexity if I can ignore it.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Paradoxically, I think the people who say they like Hasselblad for the simplicity are not on the margin!

Does anyone really prefer unnecessary confusion and complexity? Would anyone really choose a complex, difficult to remember and confusing piece of equipment over a simple and understandable piece of equipment, when both accomplish the same functions? Most of us just want things to work, and to do the things we want them to do.

The catch is that once you start stripping away complexity to pare things down to a simple set of controls, you've inevitable stripped away something that someone actually does value. I offered a case in point above: I would love a much simpler user interface and design on my GFX 100S, but don't take away my ability to add lens information into EXIF and record voice memos!

If a tool is going to be complex, with lots of control points and menu options, I need it to also allow for simplicity. In other words, let me set things up the way I like, and then let me ignore everything else I don't need. At that point, it doesn't matter anymore whether there's too much complexity if I can ignore it.

To much degree, I tend to agree with you, and I also feel that inevitably, most cameras allow for this simplicity (even when they are, on the face of themselves, overly complex). And as a result, choosing a camera often is not a simple set of is it complicated or does it get out of my way, that is one aspect, but if a Fuji can be simple enough for you, which it can be for me, I can set up favorites, but honestly I don't need to dive into things that much, my manner of using a camera is pretty straightforward compared to others, then you can also take into account that there is a 500mm lens, if you need it. Or Capture One, if you need it.

But then, it is true, the X2D already starts out with this wonderful simplicity, and for some, that may be catching enough that they satisfy themselves with what the Hasselblad brings to the table in its own totality. The simplicity, or lack of it, itself can be overcome with most cameras. But for the very few cameras that do naturally possess it, this can be alluring. And allure has a place in choosing and using a camera, as it speaks to our emotions, if not our pragmatism.

What I think I know for sure is that every single person here would (hopefully) have their own subjective reasons for their choices.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[Bill_Evans]

Camera systems have indeed added more features and, often, grown more complex. And I can totally understand how some photographers would welcome the additional capabilities and be fine with the add complexity if it was a positive addition to their workflow. I guess what I find confounding is that some folks seemed puzzled that other photographers don't need, or want, the added features or complexity.

I shoot 99% of my images on a tripod for Interiors, Architecture and Landscapes. So I need precious few of the modern "requirement" that Sony, Canon, Nikon and Fuji provide. I moved on from Sony, then Canon to Hasselblad because the added complexity of features I didn't use was a hinderance, and occasionally, a detriment to my client work.

My current setup is a pair of Hasselblad X1D ii. One with a 28p for interiors and one with the 35-70mm for details and exteriors. For higher end jobs I pair the CFV 100c with my Cambo Tech Cam. For my personal work the Tech Cam get a pair of C12 Hasselblad Fillm Backs or the 100C and 1 film back.

Once the film is developed the 907x 100C + HC 120 macro becomes my film scanner.

So for me, the simplicity and flexibility of the Hasselblad system is why I use it. The world of photography is filled with feature packed camera systems, so I hope that Hasselblad doesn't add all the wiz bang features that many photographers feel are requirements for a competent camera system. For me, it would ruin the system.