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!

Fuji GFX 32-64 Zoom v. Hasselblad X1D 30 and 45mm Primes

hcubell

Well-known member
The only GFX lens I have is the 32-64MM zoom lens. I shot files at f/11 with the Fuji zoom at 32 and 45mm and then at f/11 with the Hasselblad 30mm and 45mm primes. No question the Fuji zoom is demonstrably behind the X1D primes, but that's no big surprise as the X1D lenses are exceptional. However, I do think the Fuji zoom is quite good. The total Fuji package...camera body and zoom lens... is big and heavy. I processed the Fuji files in LR with no sharpening and the X1D files in Phocus with no sharpening. I the sharpened the files in PS with Focus Magic with a radius of 2 and an amount of 100%. Unfortunately, it is not easy on the internet with JPEGs to see the subtle differences. The 30mm samples will follow.

_DSF6077-ME.jpg

B_1101.jpg
 

hcubell

Well-known member
And now the 32mm-64mm Fuji GFX zoom at 32mm at f/11 on top, and the Hasselblad X1D 30mm prime at f/11 on the bottom.

_DSF6074.jpg

B_1098.jpg
 

Christopher

Active member
Any chance for some corner crops for easier comparison?

What is your opinion on the zoo. At f8 ? It's no surprise that the primes are better. I would hope so. Just want to know how good/bad the zoom is.
 

rmatthews

Member
Which do you feel is closer to the real colours in the scene? The warmer colour of the trees in the Hasselblad looks better to me but then looking at the snow maybe the Fuji is getting it whiter? Apologies but only looking from an ipad
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Which do you feel is closer to the real colours in the scene? The warmer colour of the trees in the Hasselblad looks better to me but then looking at the snow maybe the Fuji is getting it whiter? Apologies but only looking from an ipad
I would say that the true white balance is S omewhere in between the two images. The X1D is closer, but a bit too warm. The GFX is too cool. I did not futz with the white balance. Same with shadow detail. The X1D file out of Phocus is much better, but I did not work the GFX file at all.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Any chance for some corner crops for easier comparison?

What is your opinion on the zoo. At f8 ? It's no surprise that the primes are better. I would hope so. Just want to know how good/bad the zoom is.
I am not in a position right now to do corner crops. I literally have only been able to take a handful of images with the GFX zoom, but my initial reaction is quite favorable. However, for my intended use, the combination of the GFX body and the zoom is way too big. Much bigger than I expected. In the flesh, the X1D is smaller than expected. The GFX body is much bigger and less ergonomic in hand than I expected from looking at it online. Same with the lenses.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Not working one (GFX), but working the other (X1D) IMHO makes comparisons worthless.
I didn't "work" the X1D file either. The files were exported to PS without any sharpening in LR or Phocus and I sharpened them in PS with the same Focus Magic settings. There has been speculation that Fuji "cooks" the Rae's in some ways like applying some sort of sharpening to the raw files but I have no way of determining that.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
These things are a matter of subjective opinion, but I find the Size of the GFX on a par with a pro 35mm dslr and in combo with the 32-64mm (which I have had for all of 24 hours!) not at all large or heavy considering it is a full system medium format design. The design of the Hassy X1D is more akin to a top quality compact camera and therefore smaller. I have the GFX and 32-64mm and 120mm macro with me over the weekend and will try to take few shots assiming the weather holds.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
For the me 32-64 is more than adequate, I guess I am getting old, and eyesight poor, but the lens is amazingly sharp to me. Very little sharpening required with it or the 120mm.

The size mass, issue, as I have never shot or held the X1D and don't want to wait a year or so to get one, I will only state that after using other MF gear, I found the GFX is a great fit for me. Grip is fine, weight is not an issue and most of the controls seem well placed. Only the Q button gets in the way.

The Fuji zooms well past 100% on playback in camera but once you release you can just pinch the screen to zoom out, image checking is quite easy.

Looking forward to the 23mm and 45mm as they will be a great set of lenses if they match up to the ones Fuji has already shipped.

Paul Caldwell
 

hcubell

Well-known member
For the me 32-64 is more than adequate, I guess I am getting old, and eyesight poor, but the lens is amazingly sharp to me. Very little sharpening required with it or the 120mm.

The size mass, issue, as I have never shot or held the X1D and don't want to wait a year or so to get one, I will only state that after using other MF gear, I found the GFX is a great fit for me. Grip is fine, weight is not an issue and most of the controls seem well placed. Only the Q button gets in the way.

The Fuji zooms well past 100% on playback in camera but once you release you can just pinch the screen to zoom out, image checking is quite easy.

Looking forward to the 23mm and 45mm as they will be a great set of lenses if they match up to the ones Fuji has already shipped.

Paul Caldwell
If you read my post about the GFX zoom as a criticism of it, that was NOT my intention. I think it is very, very good. It does not give up much to the two X1D primes I compared it to at f8, f/11 and f16, and those are terrific lenses. That's pretty impressive to me. I have not tested it at f/4 or f/5.6, or at the longer end of the range. The only zoom I have used recently is the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 and the performance of the Fuji is light years ahead.

The size and weight are an issue for me, because of how I want to use a mirrorless medium format camera. I want something akin to a Mamiya 7 with 3 or 4 exceptional lenses. I don't need it to do a lot. I just need it do what I need it to do extremely well. I am not looking for a medium format system that has the feature set of a D800 or 5d.

I do disagree with you about the ergonomics of the GFX. IMO, it is very poorly designed. In fact, it feels to me that it was not designed at all. It feels like a brick that randomly had buttons placed on it. The most glaring flaw is the rear dial next to the thumb rest that I use to adjust shutter speed. You can't turn the dial while your thumb is resting on the grip. The menu system is mind numbing in its complexity. So many settings. Does anyone really need white balance bracketing? Or ISO bracketing? A myriad of ways to adjust JPEGs in camera? The Gestalt is all wrong for a professional level medium format system. It's nothing like a Phase XF or H6. Others likely feel differently.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
If you read my post about the GFX zoom as a criticism of it, that was NOT my intention. I think it is very, very good. It does not give up much to the two X1D primes I compared it to at f8, f/11 and f16, and those are terrific lenses. That's pretty impressive to me. I have not tested it at f/4 or f/5.6, or at the longer end of the range. The only zoom I have used recently is the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 and the performance of the Fuji is light years ahead.

The size and weight are an issue for me, because of how I want to use a mirrorless medium format camera. I want something akin to a Mamiya 7 with 3 or 4 exceptional lenses. I don't need it to do a lot. I just need it do what I need it to do extremely well. I am not looking for a medium format system that has the feature set of a D800 or 5d.

I do disagree with you about the ergonomics of the GFX. IMO, it is very poorly designed. In fact, it feels to me that it was not designed at all. It feels like a brick that randomly had buttons placed on it. The most glaring flaw is the rear dial next to the thumb rest that I use to adjust shutter speed. You can't turn the dial while your thumb is resting on the grip. The menu system is mind numbing in its complexity. So many settings. Does anyone really need white balance bracketing? Or ISO bracketing? A myriad of ways to adjust JPEGs in camera? The Gestalt is all wrong for a professional level medium format system. It's nothing like a Phase XF or H6. Others likely feel differently.
Hi Howard, no criticism taken. Just passing on what I have found.

Actually love the camera, and would pick up a 2nd if I could as I can easily achieve what I have been looking for in MF for a while now. Lots of issues on the raw conversion that LR did not address and Fuji and C1 should have addressed which is really too bad.

I have realized many of the posters on various forums are only shooting jpgs, and the out of camera jpgs are very good, but the raw files are alive to me. All the great range of that 50Mp chip is there for sure.

Personally I love the body, menus etc. I am coming from other Fuji's and like their setup. I only wish the drive setup was like the X-T2. Menu system is basically the same as the X-T2, X-Pro2 X-T2, so having used all of those, it took me minutes to pick up and use the camera.

Both systems will do very well for sure. It's obvious that the April 2016 earthquake did a lot more damage over in Japan than we every realized as neither company, Fuji or Hasselblad can ship in any real volume. Fuji more than likely had a initial batch of chips, like P1 did on the Sony 100MP before the earthquake and put those into production. Huge volumes of orders are out there for both products worldwide and its quite clear both companies are into this mirrorless MF platform for the long haul.



Paul Caldwell
 

algrove

Well-known member
The X1D file out of Phocus is much better, but I did not work the GFX file at all.
It was this bit of your post that led me to post my comment. Sorry if I interpreted it wrongly.

"did not work the GFX file at all" to me means it is OOC period.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
It was this bit of your post that led me to post my comment. Sorry if I interpreted it wrongly.

"did not work the GFX file at all" to me means it is OOC period.
Yes, both OOC. My point is that there was more shadow detail in the X1D file OOC than the GFX file, but that's not a big deal as the shadows in the GFX file can easily be brought up in LR. We are not talking jpeg performance!
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Howard

You have to remember my GFX and lenses were free! :eek: Well, ok, not actually free, but I went through a load of unused and little used kit, and with the £500 trade in allowance offered by Fuji on a Nikon D810, I came out just about even on the deal.

All modern cameras are probably too complex. I started photography in a simpler era. But I like the useability of the GFX. Unlike Sony (another trade in item) F stops can be set on the lens, as they should be. And buttons can be easily customised. Make it as simple or complex as you need. Most of the time it aperture priority or manual for me.

If you read my post about the GFX zoom as a criticism of it, that was NOT my intention. I think it is very, very good. It does not give up much to the two X1D primes I compared it to at f8, f/11 and f16, and those are terrific lenses. That's pretty impressive to me. I have not tested it at f/4 or f/5.6, or at the longer end of the range. The only zoom I have used recently is the Sony FE 24-70 f/4 and the performance of the Fuji is light years ahead.

The size and weight are an issue for me, because of how I want to use a mirrorless medium format camera. I want something akin to a Mamiya 7 with 3 or 4 exceptional lenses. I don't need it to do a lot. I just need it do what I need it to do extremely well. I am not looking for a medium format system that has the feature set of a D800 or 5d.

I do disagree with you about the ergonomics of the GFX. IMO, it is very poorly designed. In fact, it feels to me that it was not designed at all. It feels like a brick that randomly had buttons placed on it. The most glaring flaw is the rear dial next to the thumb rest that I use to adjust shutter speed. You can't turn the dial while your thumb is resting on the grip. The menu system is mind numbing in its complexity. So many settings. Does anyone really need white balance bracketing? Or ISO bracketing? A myriad of ways to adjust JPEGs in camera? The Gestalt is all wrong for a professional level medium format system. It's nothing like a Phase XF or H6. Others likely feel differently.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
Hi Howard, no criticism taken. Just passing on what I have found.

Actually love the camera, and would pick up a 2nd if I could as I can easily achieve what I have been looking for in MF for a while now. Lots of issues on the raw conversion that LR did not address and Fuji and C1 should have addressed which is really too bad.

I have realized many of the posters on various forums are only shooting jpgs, and the out of camera jpgs are very good, but the raw files are alive to me. All the great range of that 50Mp chip is there for sure.

Personally I love the body, menus etc. I am coming from other Fuji's and like their setup. I only wish the drive setup was like the X-T2. Menu system is basically the same as the X-T2, X-Pro2 X-T2, so having used all of those, it took me minutes to pick up and use the camera.

Both systems will do very well for sure. It's obvious that the April 2016 earthquake did a lot more damage over in Japan than we every realized as neither company, Fuji or Hasselblad can ship in any real volume. Fuji more than likely had a initial batch of chips, like P1 did on the Sony 100MP before the earthquake and put those into production. Huge volumes of orders are out there for both products worldwide and its quite clear both companies are into this mirrorless MF platform for the long haul.



Paul Caldwell
The funniest thing for me when I was trying to set up the GFX for Manual exposure mode and I couldn't figure out how to set the shutter speed. Finally, a light bulb went off and I realized there was a shutter speed knob on top! It's been a long time since I have seen one of those.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

The simple way to demonstrate differences is to post actual pixel crops.

With good lenses, shooting at f/11 is giving up a lot of performance, almost all good lenses I have seen perform best at f/5.6 or even f/4, so it is a bit of surprise if the Fuji zoom lags behind, except extreme corners.

I must admit that I don't have experience with MF-zooms. I shoot Canon and Zeiss zooms on my Sony A7rII and they compare well with the Carl Zeiss lenses I have for Hasselblad 555 ELD.

It is a bit difficult to compare images developed using different raw developers and the approach of using no sharpening in raw conversion followed by FocusMagic is basically a sound one.

But, modern raw converters do a lot of things under the hood. For instance, it seems that Lightroom applies corrections for the GFX that cannot be disabled and that is probably also the case with the X1D. A reason for that is in part that many modern lenses are not fully corrected, some issues can be easily handled in raw conversion. Examples of such things are distortion, lateral chroma and vignetting. It makes a lot of sense to have some easy to correct first order distortion in the raw image and fix it in raw conversion rather than having a complex residual distortion that cannot really be handled by simple algorithms.

Best regards
Erik



The only GFX lens I have is the 32-64MM zoom lens. I shot files at f/11 with the Fuji zoom at 32 and 45mm and then at f/11 with the Hasselblad 30mm and 45mm primes. No question the Fuji zoom is demonstrably behind the X1D primes, but that's no big surprise as the X1D lenses are exceptional. However, I do think the Fuji zoom is quite good. The total Fuji package...camera body and zoom lens... is big and heavy. I processed the Fuji files in LR with no sharpening and the X1D files in Phocus with no sharpening. I the sharpened the files in PS with Focus Magic with a radius of 2 and an amount of 100%. Unfortunately, it is not easy on the internet with JPEGs to see the subtle differences. The 30mm samples will follow.

View attachment 125414

View attachment 125415
 

Christopher

Active member
Hi,

The simple way to demonstrate differences is to post actual pixel crops.

With good lenses, shooting at f/11 is giving up a lot of performance, almost all good lenses I have seen perform best at f/5.6 or even f/4, so it is a bit of surprise if the Fuji zoom lags behind, except extreme corners.

I must admit that I don't have experience with MF-zooms. I shoot Canon and Zeiss zooms on my Sony A7rII and they compare well with the Carl Zeiss lenses I have for Hasselblad 555 ELD.

It is a bit difficult to compare images developed using different raw developers and the approach of using no sharpening in raw conversion followed by FocusMagic is basically a sound one.

But, modern raw converters do a lot of things under the hood. For instance, it seems that Lightroom applies corrections for the GFX that cannot be disabled and that is probably also the case with the X1D. A reason for that is in part that many modern lenses are not fully corrected, some issues can be easily handled in raw conversion. Examples of such things are distortion, lateral chroma and vignetting. It makes a lot of sense to have some easy to correct first order distortion in the raw image and fix it in raw conversion rather than having a complex residual distortion that cannot really be handled by simple algorithms.

Best regards
Erik
Sorry Erik, but what lenses are we talking about ? I have shot so many different ones and really don't know a lot which reach their best performance at f4 or f5,6 in the corners. Nearly all lenses show better corner performance at f8 and even f11.

Sure I'm not talking about center or mid center performance. There it is clear that f8 already shows diffraction.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Sorry Erik, but what lenses are we talking about ? I have shot so many different ones and really don't know a lot which reach their best performance at f4 or f5,6 in the corners. Nearly all lenses show better corner performance at f8 and even f11.

Sure I'm not talking about center or mid center performance. There it is clear that f8 already shows diffraction.
In my experience with fast wides (f/2 or faster) they usually perform best in the f/4-8 range for landscape or street shots.

Regarding these two shots I believe it's possible that Fuji is doing "file cooking" but I prefer the look of it to the Hasselblad.
 
Top