The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Hasselblad X1D

hcubell

Well-known member
I just realized for the $26000 cost of upgrading my IQ180 to the IQ3-100 I could buy TWO X1D bodies and the 30mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. ($27000 list). And I'd still own the IQ180. Seems like a no brainer
I did the same analysis and came to a similar conclusion on upgrading my IQ 180.
 

tashley

Subscriber Member
I just realized for the $26000 cost of upgrading my IQ180 to the IQ3-100 I could buy TWO X1D bodies and the 30mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. ($27000 list). And I'd still own the IQ180. Seems like a no brainer.

Phase One upgrade pricing is a rip off
True dat. I'd upgrade in a flash if the price wasn't in fantasy territory. I think Phase are in the death loop: their prices are too high to create the volume sales that would allow economies of scale that would allow reasonable production costs that could lower sales costs and create more volume. Soon their only customers will be high end repro and Andreas Gursky.
 

steve_cor

Member
Joe, it seems now is the time to get a Bad Elf and be done with it. Excellent little device that rapidly acquires sometimes up to 15 sats.:thumbup:
This is the Bad Elf:




I guess the idea is you record your location into your cell phone instead of your camera.
 
I just realized for the $26000 cost of upgrading my IQ180 to the IQ3-100 I could buy TWO X1D bodies and the 30mm, 45mm and 90mm lenses. ($27000 list). And I'd still own the IQ180. Seems like a no brainer.

Phase One upgrade pricing is a rip off
Except that you now need to carry and maintain two systems. Good luck with that!
 

D&A

Well-known member
Thanks Lou and Steve. I've been "experimenting" with GPS since 2007 when I was shooting with a Nikon. I even designed and built my own GPS accessory that connected to the Nikon 10-pin connector.



It's simple tech and the parts cost in 2007 was less than $100 (USD). I don't understand why any maker would opt out of including built-in GPS. It's not a deal breaker, but it is a disappointment. I was spoiled with the Leica S Type 006.

Joe
Wow that is so cool Joe. No doubt you know a zillion times more than I do in electronics and developing products, but in the late 1970's, while doing a considerable amt of color printing at home, a friend and myself following general ideas and schematics, in Popular Electonics magazine, hand built from decrete components, a color analyzer for my color enlarger. It worked great and I still believe I have it somewheres (and if so would post a picture).

What do you say we combine our skills and build/ market a competitive medium format camera incoporating our electronics and everyones needs and wants in such a body. Think we have a chance? LOL.

Joe is it possible that no matter how small the circuitry is for GPS, they simply couldn't fit it in the body without sacrificing its small form factor?

Interesting Video and certainly adds to the enticement and desirabilty of this system, assuming it performs as most hope it will for their particular needs.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

D&A

Well-known member
Not a snowball's chance in hell. :ROTFL:



I think it may have more to do with power consumption than with size. And the GPS active element needs to be positioned at or near the top of the camera body (the Leica S Type 006 had its GPS protruding from the top of the body) to maximize the reception of satellite signals. In the sleek X1D body, it just may not work. We'll know soon enough. Or not soon enough for some.

Joe
I guess thats why Pentax opted for a external GPS unit as it might have required a redesign of a portion of the 645D/Z bodies in order to accomidate internal GPS circuitry/antenna. Although not as elegant and it takes up the hot shoe, but this may be the alternative for the X1D.

Dave (D&A)
 

PeterA

Well-known member
50 megapixels in great lightweight ergonomic format with great lenses from a known chip that is 90% of the story. I can carry a body three lenses and a tripod all day with no back ache - the camera smokes anything else out there in 50 megapixel land, and Hasselblad are surprised at interest? Seriously? Check out the size of print Ming Thien was pushing out from pre-production outfit.

Goodness gracious Hassleblad and Fiju will SMASH it. Phase One/Hasselblad H6/Leica S etc ....just had the rug pulled out from under their feet...I expect to see similar types of camera released from any manufacturer interested in the 20-30K system market announced over the next year or two at most. Lotsd of losers and few winners so far...

This format is a game changer - just like the Sony A7 series was in 35mm land.

Fuji are now serious players in APC (35mm) via the XT-2 and MF via their announced MF system they have ambushed the market.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Peter, I believe there is a segment of serious shooters for one of any number of reasons, that either do not prefer an EVF over and OVF, or simply cannot completely feel comfortable or adjust to an EVF. This is regardless how good that present day EVF is, such as the one used on the Leica SL. Sure, the EVF is only going to improve by leaps and bounds as time goes on and also as the younger generations all get exposed to and use EVF's as opposed to OVF's, the EVF will probably become the ipso facto standard on virtually every camera.

Still at this point in time, those buying into the two aforementioned mirrorless medium format cameras I would venture to guess are from a generation that mainly grew up with OVF and a percentage will prefer to remain with them as long as their eyesight holds out. For them, the cameras with a traditional mirror box, especially in medium format cameras, will still remain a viable although smaller segment of the market. I actually envision a true hybrid viewfinder (EVF/OVF) might be a viable path that current OVF DSLR's will take to satisfy both camps while not having to make a firm stance in the near future, of one type ofviewfinder over the other....or at the very least, have attributes of both, providing the best of both worlds. Pipe dream? Who knows.

Dave (D&A)
 

PeterA

Well-known member
Peter, I believe there is a segment of serious shooters for one of any number of reasons, that either do not prefer an EVF over and OVF, or simply cannot completely feel comfortable or adjust to an EVF. This is regardless how good that present day EVF is, such as the one used on the Leica SL. Sure, the EVF is only going to improve by leaps and bounds as time goes on and also as the younger generations all get exposed to and use EVF's as opposed to OVF's, the EVF will probably become the ipso facto standard on virtually every camera.

Still at this point in time, those buying into the two aforementioned mirrorless medium format cameras I would venture to guess are from a generation that mainly grew up with OVF and a percentage will prefer to remain with them as long as their eyesight holds out. For them, the cameras with a traditional mirror box, especially in medium format cameras, will still remain a viable although smaller segment of the market. I actually envision a true hybrid viewfinder (EVF/OVF) might be a viable path that current OVF DSLR's will take to satisfy both camps while not having to make a firm stance in the near future, of one type ofviewfinder over the other....or at the very least, have attributes of both, providing the best of both worlds. Pipe dream? Who knows.

Dave (D&A)
I have to agree that in MF for me the quality of viewfinder is a paramount consideration - and then other ergonomic considerations. However , when I say 'game changer' I mean - cost/benefit. Personally I expect to be very disapointed by EVF on XID - however teh form factor might actually make up for teh difference.

No way though will I ever go back to the large heavy boxes ( no knock on XF or Hasselblad bodies apart from size) we have had to put up with and the gargantuan glass OR the precious mucking around with Alpa gear- I have got rid of all that stuff and more over the last 6 months - don't miss it one iota.

I am tyalking about the future likely winning ingredients- I never suspected that EVF experiendce would ever be as good as what Leica have delivered in the SL camera - and now it is a benchmark I expect others to exceed in time. Yes MF OVF is very clear- but once you get used to seeing ewxaxctly what you will be getting live - or being able to 10X zoom in for critical focus - there really is no going back.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
As I have mentioned previously, many preferences are heavily skewed toward personal applications.

This notion extends to viewfinder experiences. In some cases, EVF solves problems for some, that do not exist for other photographers.

For example, the EVF advantage of 10X zoom for critical focus suggests static subjects, where for many their subject matter is more fluid.

Also, fluid subjects in lower light are a bit more difficult with EVF because of smear.

Personally, when shooting for longer periods of time, I still prefer OVF because it lessens eye-fatigue compared to my experiences with current EVFs. This even extends to EVF causing temporary night blindness in lower ambient due to gain ... where with a OVF your eyes adjust to the lower light levels (up to a point).

However, IF my applications dictated a backpack of gear and a trek further than 100 yards from vehicle, I'd probably dump all I have and go this route regardless of my opinion of EVF technology as it now exists (including the SL which I found disappointing because I absorbed all the hype and had such high expectations that it was bound to not meet them).

Three words that temper evaluations of gear:

Application. Application. Application.

- Marc
 

jerome_m

Member
I also prefer an OVF over an EVF. Actually, the fact that Sony went EVF only with their cameras is the reason I looked for another brand (and eventually moved to MF), while I had been very satisfied with the A900 (and cameras from Minolta beforehand).

I can tolerate an EVF in a small camera, like the Sony RX100. Everything is a compromise.

Then, other people actually prefer to use an EVF. I can understand that, it has some advantages.

Fortunately, with Hasselblad, we still have the choice: either the X1D or the equivalent H6D-50c. I don't think Hasselblad is abandoning the H line any soon.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
It's funny having OVF forever when I switched to Sony mirrorless it took about a month to really get used to it , now I can't go back to OVF. What I like are the live view benefits from it. I don't really put much stock in the finder anyway as long as I can compose and focus I'm happy.
 
Top