Tim like others, there are a number of things you mentioned about the X1D and lenses that resonate with me after having shot with a demo X1D a few months ago as well as carefully examining X1D images posted by yourself and others.Thanks Godfrey. What I find fascinating about reacting to it is that I came into it with a lot of pent up irritation towards Hasselblad - and I got the firm impression during the first hour of use that it feels more beta than it should but that overall, none of that really compromises the special and revolutionary thing they have done here. It has that feeling of serious DNA that a Leica has, along with the same "why the F did they do x, y and z this way?' but overall, it just feels very right. It feels like this is how a camera should be. And I was really not expecting that.
Who knows how long the honeymoon will last, but for now I am pretty taken with it, as I think has been clear!
Most of all, the IQ is just lovely. I keep being surprised to find how very clean ISO 400 and 800 are and like I said, getting two lenses in one day which are both class-leading, well built and attractively priced whilst also being small and light... well, that's a rarity.
There are so many things that need fixing and improving but none of them feels at all insurmountable.
Immediately upon handling the body, the form factor and minimilist design closely resembled a Leica. Its the sort of body I might have expected if Leica was to design and implement a mirrorless medium format body, maybe even more so than the SL. The same goes for fit and finish, menu and touch screen and button placement, right down to sometimes implementing a sequence of features in not the most efficient or intuitive way. Same goes for the occasional early firmware glitches, which sort of reminds me of certain Leica M bodies (more than the inevitable comparision to the Leica SL), that upon initial production and release, were often a work in progress.
The optical performance and presentation of an image from the current lenses are sharp but at the same time exhibit what most might refer to as a painterly quality with regard to their color signature and almost delicate nature in the presentation of the subject matter captured. Detail without being harsh or as previously described overly contrasty. Almost resembling some of the Mandler designed Leica lenses as opposed to many of their current aspherical lenses.
The size and handling of the lenses adds to the package. I personally believe all this was carefully though through by the X1D design team, with most of these attributes in mind.
In contrast I also believe the Fuji GFX and the implimentation of its design, had a completely different form and fuction goals in mind in comparison to the X1D. Not that one system is better than the other but each primarily targets a different set of users and presents strengths in areas where the other may be lacking or at the very least, is not as well suited.
Unthough unrealistic to expect, I almost wish there would not be head to head comparisons of these two systems as it would simply be an exercise in pointing out the strenghs of one system while the same features being compared would be considered a weakness of the other. Maybe so, but in the case of the X1D vs. GFX, I see it as if one system appears to be weaker or deficent in a comparitive feature, it simply had to be that way in order to retain the overhelming strength of that particular system and what makes it unique and ground breaking.
There will be other future mirrorless medium format cameras/systems that will fall more closely in line to either the X1D or GFX and those then can be in direct competition. Even though there is room for improvement and no doubt that will be implemented in firmware updates, both systems should be enjoyed for what they are and what they offer. Again these are just my own personal thoughts.