Hasselblad X1D v. Fuji GFX: Who Has Used Both?

[hcubell]

Rightly or wrongly, there continues to be great interest in comparing the X1D with the GFX. This was my response on a thread at LuLa about the experiences of those who have actually owned or at least used both the X1D and the GFX:

"I owned both, and have now returned the GFX after shooting with it for 30 days alongside the X1D. For me, the choice between these two camera systems turned out to be very easy to make, and should be quite obvious to anyone who picks up an X1D and a GFX side-by-side and tries the different lenses. The DNA of both cameras is fundamentally different. The most important thing to me is the form factor. I already have a Hasselblad H2 with a Phase IQ 180 back and a full complement of Hasselblad lenses. I do not look forward to travelling with it. I look forward to hiking with it even less. So, as a more portable alternative to the H2 system, I wanted... a more portable alternative. A medium format system that is small, light, easy to carry, and simple to operate, with minimal knobs, buttons and menu options. That is the X1D. The GFX body is heavier and much bulkier. The lenses are even bulkier. The user interface on the GFX and all of those buttons and dials are a turn off to me. I would forget after three weeks which button and which dial controlled which function, and have to relearn it. OTOH, there are others that love all of that stuff and dislike the minimalism of the X1D.
If the image quality or the lenses with the GFX were superior to the X1D, or if better software options were available for the GFX, my decision may have been different, but that was not the case. There will be endless arguments comparing the color from the two systems, high ISO performance, lens performance at 250% magnification, etc. Everyone will have an opinion, but at the end of the day it's personal and I don't think anyone is going to convince anyone that the X1D is a dog and the the GFX is fabulous, or vice versa. Those opinions are personal and subjective. As it turned out, the one area where I thought the GFX would have an advantage that would have been important to me is the EVF. The GFX EVF has much better specs on paper, but in practice the X1D EVF is actually better. The EVF for the GFX shimmers, which is very distracting to me. More significantly, the magnified live view of the GFX EVF is poorly implemented. Try it with both cameras. The difference is readily apparent. Of all the "features" that a mirrorless camera offers, the single, most important feature to me is the ability to accurately focus the lenses using magnified live view.
Lens lineup? Hasselblad has released 3 lenses so far. A 30mm, a 45mm and a 90mm. They are superb lenses. Four more have been announced. A 120mm Macro, a 65mm, a 22mm and a 35-75mm zoom. I expect that those lenses will also be superb. That's a pretty complete lineup for my needs. Fairly comparable to Fuji's announced lenses for the GFX. I am sure Fuji will fill out its lens lineup with a bunch of other lenses that are f/2 or f/2.8 lenses or zooms and are the size of bazookas. I have zero interest in such lenses.
One other thing. The X1D is the most beautifully designed and enjoyable to operate camera that I have used in over 50 years of photography. It is a joy to use. The GFX is a very workmanlike camera system. It can get the job done. However, there was no particular pleasure in using it. Sort of like the difference between driving a 911 and a minivan. Both will get you from point A to point B, but they are very different experiences."

 

[Speedgraphic]

A 911 vs a minivan.

Sure, ok. So one is something people buy when they're having a midlife crisis, and one is something people buy when they need to get sh*t done. Got it. :ROTFL:

 

[hcubell]

A 911 vs a minivan.

Sure, ok. So one is something people buy when they're having a midlife crisis, and one is something people buy when they need to get sh*t done. Got it. :ROTFL:

Gee, that's not at all what I said. Your comment implies that (a) only someone in a midlife crisis would enjoy the experience of using a well designed tool and (b) one can't actually use an X1D to achieve your artistic aims. That seems like quite a defensive reaction to my comments. Hmmm. By any chance are you a dedicated user of Fuji X Series cameras? That would tend to explain things.
My fundamental point is that the GFX, to me, is a very utilitarian tool that offers many features, sort of like a minivan that permits the seats to be configured in 9 different ways. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you want or need. I just found it to be a joyless experience to use in hand, as I was struggling to deal with all of the menu options and buttons and dials. You disagree? Tell us about your own experience using the two cameras. Perhaps you could point us to your website that would showcase the kind of work you do and provide some context for what your needs are.

 

[Jeffg53]

I've been looking at GFX raw files and they just don't excite me. I can't put my finger on it yet. I have been looking at the GFX for a number of reasons, mostly because of what Hasselblad is not offering. First and foremost is the H lens adapter. I shoot long mostly so need something like the HC 210 and 150 on the adapter. Then I discover that the adapter doesn't come with a tripod foot so I would have the nice long lenses dragging the lens mount down. I've been there before and know that I don't want to go there again.

It looks like I may be keeping my Nikon a little longer.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I can see your point, I guess. But, you shouldn't expect miracles. Your Nikon has a Sony sensor at 4.8 micron, the GFX has slightly larger pixels at 5.3 microns. The smaller Nikon pixel is capable capturing more photons till saturation: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59355517

So, looking at actual pixels would not give the GFX an advantage, but that ignores the camera having significantly more pixels.

The way I run my comparisons is sometimes that I decide on a print size, like 70x100 cm. Resize both image to that size at 180 PPI and look at the resized images at actual pixels from say 80 cm distance. How those numbers come out depends on your screen.

Best regards
Erik

I've been looking at GFX raw files and they just don't excite me. I can't put my finger on it yet. I have been looking at the GFX for a number of reasons, mostly because of what Hasselblad is not offering. First and foremost is the H lens adapter. I shoot long mostly so need something like the HC 210 and 150 on the adapter. Then I discover that the adapter doesn't come with a tripod foot so I would have the nice long lenses dragging the lens mount down. I've been there before and know that I don't want to go there again.

It looks like I may be keeping my Nikon a little longer.

 

[Jeffg53]

There's a slight problem of getting files from both cameras of the same subject at the same time to do as you suggest. I'm not pixel peeping, I'm merely talking about the look of the files to my eyes. The Fuji files may be great for many uses but they don't appeal to me at any percentage. It took me a long time to work out how to get what I wanted from the Nikon coming from an H4D. I can look at the Hasselblad X1D files and like what I see - all subjective, no science.

And I'm sorry Howard, I shouldn't have hijacked your thread.

 

[GrahamWelland]

A 911 vs a minivan.

Sure, ok. So one is something people buy when they're having a midlife crisis, and one is something people buy when they need to get sh*t done. Got it. :ROTFL:

Nailed it!!

X1D for the Mamiya 7 experience, Fuji for the traditional DSLR. IMHO.

 

[mjr]

Great that you have found a camera that ticks your boxes Howard, I hope you enjoy using it!

We should remember that nobody needs to justify their choices, the image is what should ultimately do the talking, not the kit used to take it in my opinion. I have a vague interest that fellow photographers enjoy what they use and buy what allows them to produce the work they want to produce but beyond that, I don't think anyone really cares what others use. I know that when I see the occasional image that I find truly inspiring, my first thoughts are always wow, that person/thing looks amazing, i'd love to see what I can do with that subject or that place/light is unbelievable, I'd love to be standing there, I am never thinking, wow, I wish I owned the camera that he/she took that with!

Ultimately we should be sensible enough to make choices based on our own needs and then hope to do justice to the subjects we choose to put in front of the camera, there are so many different requirements that the chance of there being a piece of equipment universally regarded as the "best" is ridiculous, finding what works for you should be the only important thing, that being different to someone else is not an issue. I think that's why I find studio tests so pointless, stating that you don't need X camera because when cropped to 200% it is no better in the corner than Y camera is just absurd, but maybe that's just me!

Anyway, it's a great feeling when you find what just allows you to work, I hope we all get to that point and produce amazing work unrestricted by technology, guided by our vision!

Have a nice weekend.

Mat

 

[Paul2660]

I have absolutely no problem with the magnified live view. So for the OP it doesn't work, for me it works perfectly. It works like the magnified live view on the Pentax K1 which IMO is superior to most DSLR's as it allows for focus peaking.

I would agree with the issue on the EVF, in how it shimmers or shows possibly a bit of morie, I only notice this in a NON magnified view, where as again once magnified the effect appears to my eyes as gone.

Software is a potential weakness of the Fuji as I currently don't feel LR/ACR get the best from the GFX raw, however there are ways around that which work fine for me with little or no inconvenience.

For me the GFX seems like a great design and a relief to carry due to the lighter weight. I was a bit concerned about the lenses, since they do feel lighter than most MF glass, but optically they appear to be excellent (again based on my use). The tilting LCD is invaluable something that I use on every shoot. I would love to carry the XF and lenses but the extra weight and 100% need for a tripod just limits where I can travel with that kit.

As for the X1D, I would have loved to compare it to the GFX, however no camera IMO is worth waiting for 1 year or so. I do hope that X1D shipments become a bit more realistic in the future. Also since both cameras have the same sensor and it appears to me that Fuji was able to pull more tech out the 50MP than either Hasselblad or P1 (ES and EFC, along with a timer and intervalometer which allows use without a remote), I will stay with the Fuji.


Paul Caldwell

 

[hcubell]

I've been looking at GFX raw files and they just don't excite me. I can't put my finger on it yet. I have been looking at the GFX for a number of reasons, mostly because of what Hasselblad is not offering. First and foremost is the H lens adapter. I shoot long mostly so need something like the HC 210 and 150 on the adapter. Then I discover that the adapter doesn't come with a tripod foot so I would have the nice long lenses dragging the lens mount down. I've been there before and know that I don't want to go there again.

It looks like I may be keeping my Nikon a little longer.

Hello, Jeff. One potential solution to the lack of a lens collar to use with the HC lens adapter and the X1D is to buy the HC lens adapter for the Fuji GFX and just use the lens collar, or try to order just the collar from Fuji as a replacement part.
Another potential solution is that there is a shop in Germany called PPL that said they were in the process of custom fabricating them for sale. I don't speak German so I can't email them, but their website is ppl.de.

Update:
I was able to email them and here is the prompt response I received:

"Hi Howard,

the prototype is ready. We are waiting for the first model from the serie for a last test.
After Hasselblad sales-start we need about 14 days for the produktion. I'll send
you a mail when we are ready.
Mit besten Grüßen

Matthias von der Ahé


PPL | PRO PHOTO LOUNGE | Fotofachhandel e.K.

Karlsruher Straße 4
D - 76437 Rastatt

Fon: 07222 5063470

Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.ppl.de"

 

[hcubell]

Nailed it!!

X1D for the Mamiya 7 experience, Fuji for the traditional DSLR. IMHO.

For me, that's a pretty accurate summary. Of course, you CAN use the X1D to do some of what the GFX can do just like you CAN use the GFX to do the same things that you would do with the X1D.

 

[tcdeveau]

Hello, Jeff. One potential solution to the lack of a lens collar to use with the HC lens adapter and the X1D is to buy the HC lens adapter for the Fuji GFX and just use the lens collar, or try to order just the collar from Fuji as a replacement part.
Another potential solution is that there is a shop in Germany called PPL that said they were in the process of custom fabricating them for sale. I don't speak German so I can't email them, but their website is ppl.de.

Update:
I was able to email them and here is the prompt response I received:

"Hi Howard,

the prototype is ready. We are waiting for the first model from the serie for a last test.
After Hasselblad sales-start we need about 14 days for the produktion. I'll send
you a mail when we are ready.
Mit besten Grüßen


Matthias von der Ahé


PPL | PRO PHOTO LOUNGE | Fotofachhandel e.K.

Karlsruher Straße 4
D - 76437 Rastatt

Fon: 07222 5063470

Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.ppl.de"

That's good to know. Lack of a tripod collar on the adapter was a serious oversight IMHO. I wonder if Really Right Stuff would be willing to produce something similar?

The X1D has started popping up as "in stock" at some US retailers lately, I'm hoping to order mine soon.

 

[jdphoto]

Anyway, it's a great feeling when you find what just allows you to work, I hope we all get to that point and produce amazing work unrestricted by technology, guided by our vision!

Have a nice weekend.

Mat

That really sums it up nicely. Too often time and energy is spent chasing technology. Starkly simple, even primitive designs are allowing more creative freedom and deliberate compositions. The satisfaction of creating something as opposed to just doing something will show in your work.

 

[Speedgraphic]

Gee, that's not at all what I said. Your comment implies that (a) only someone in a midlife crisis would enjoy the experience of using a well designed tool and (b) one can't actually use an X1D to achieve your artistic aims. That seems like quite a defensive reaction to my comments. Hmmm. By any chance are you a dedicated user of Fuji X Series cameras? That would tend to explain things.
My fundamental point is that the GFX, to me, is a very utilitarian tool that offers many features, sort of like a minivan that permits the seats to be configured in 9 different ways. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you want or need. I just found it to be a joyless experience to use in hand, as I was struggling to deal with all of the menu options and buttons and dials. You disagree? Tell us about your own experience using the two cameras. Perhaps you could point us to your website that would showcase the kind of work you do and provide some context for what your needs are.

Well I think your problem is language my man. I think it's pretty obvious that mini-van's are associated with a kind of ho-hum lameness that could only be intended to deride. I understand and accept the core point of what you were trying to say, the X1D is obviously designed to be a beautiful, semi-capable thing. Something wonderful for those who accept it as is. The GFX is more versatile, which is meaningful for some, and not to others. It's more like a Rolleiflex vs a Hasselblad. The comparison you made would be like saying it's a Rolleiflex vs a Mamiya 645E.

Had you intended to be diplomatic you could have said it was like a 911 vs a WRX STI. But, saying the GFX is a minivan is not something someone does if they want to be diplomatic.

www.sperryphoto.com is my site. You can't tell from my site but I don't own any Fuji digital cameras. 95% of what's online has been shot on film with a Rolleiflex, Pentax 6x7, Leica M4, and a some 8x10 and 4x5 cameras. Personally I wouldn't pay full price for either the GFX or X1D because as yet, neither are much better than what I can do with medium format film, or Nikon digital. If I had to pick one it would be the Fuji and I'd use it for my commercial work, which I still might do on a rental basis when the wide angle primes are released.

 

[jdphoto]

Mark Sperry is my site. You can't tell from my site but I don't own any Fuji digital cameras. 95% of what's online has been shot on film with a Rolleiflex, Pentax 6x7, Leica M4, and a some 8x10 and 4x5 cameras. Personally I wouldn't pay full price for either the GFX or X1D because as yet, neither are much better than what I can do with medium format film, or Nikon digital. If I had to pick one it would be the Fuji and I'd use it for my commercial work, which I still might do on a rental basis when the wide angle primes are released.

Ahh, Maine! One of my favorite locations. I've spent many summers on Swan's Island and rented a house near Orono on the Penobscot. I'm still in New England but long for the rocky coast. I was part of a crew that sailed a Tartan 37 up the Atlantic and remembering passing Portland very well. We had strong wind and waves that night and you could see the milky way to each horizon. Luminescence was everywhere in the water, breaking over the bow in a liquid light show that was simply magical. Maine is a special place indeed. I hope to find a shake covered cape nestled on the coast someday...I also shoot film, it inspires me.

 

[hcubell]

Well I think your problem is language my man. I think it's pretty obvious that mini-van's are associated with a kind of ho-hum lameness that could only be intended to deride. I understand and accept the core point of what you were trying to say, the X1D is obviously designed to be a beautiful, semi-capable thing. Something wonderful for those who accept it as is. The GFX is more versatile, which is meaningful for some, and not to others. It's more like a Rolleiflex vs a Hasselblad. The comparison you made would be like saying it's a Rolleiflex vs a Mamiya 645E.

Had you intended to be diplomatic you could have said it was like a 911 vs a WRX STI. But, saying the GFX is a minivan is not something someone does if they want to be diplomatic.

www.sperryphoto.com is my site. You can't tell from my site but I don't own any Fuji digital cameras. 95% of what's online has been shot on film with a Rolleiflex, Pentax 6x7, Leica M4, and a some 8x10 and 4x5 cameras. Personally I wouldn't pay full price for either the GFX or X1D because as yet, neither are much better than what I can do with medium format film, or Nikon digital. If I had to pick one it would be the Fuji and I'd use it for my commercial work, which I still might do on a rental basis when the wide angle primes are released.

It is actually you that has the problem here, not me, because you simply can't accept the description of MY experience in using the GFX. My point, which I stand by, is that the GFX is versatile and has lots of "features" and buttons and dials (e.g., White Balance bracketing, ISO bracketing, and a multitude of ways to configure JPEgs), but using it was, FOR ME, like driving a minivan. Minivans are great to transport lots of people and cargo, but I don't think anyone who has driven a minivan has ever described it as a particularly enjoyable driving experience. Of course, your experience with minivans may be different. Perhaps you have a minivan and I hit a raw nerve.
Now, as to who is being snide and petty, you need to take a look in the mirror. You describe the X1D as a camera that was "designed to be a beautiful, semi-capable thing", implying that anyone who buys one is a shallow, superficial individual who is only concerned with the physical appearance of things. I think your biases have become completely apparent. There is a lot of anger, resentment and disdain dripping from those comments. You won't admit it here, but you know it.

 

[hcubell]

Hello, Jeff. One potential solution to the lack of a lens collar to use with the HC lens adapter and the X1D is to buy the HC lens adapter for the Fuji GFX and just use the lens collar, or try to order just the collar from Fuji as a replacement part.
Another potential solution is that there is a shop in Germany called PPL that said they were in the process of custom fabricating them for sale. I don't speak German so I can't email them, but their website is ppl.de.

Update:
I was able to email them and here is the prompt response I received:

"Hi Howard,

the prototype is ready. We are waiting for the first model from the serie for a last test.
After Hasselblad sales-start we need about 14 days for the produktion. I'll send
you a mail when we are ready.
Mit besten Grüßen

Matthias von der Ahé


PPL | PRO PHOTO LOUNGE | Fotofachhandel e.K.

Karlsruher Straße 4
D - 76437 Rastatt

Fon: 07222 5063470

Mail: [email protected]
Web: www.ppl.de"

There is a photo of the prototype lens collar here:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10208546174794160&set=gm.282326708861798&type=3&theater

 

[jdphoto]

It is actually you that has the problem here, not me, because you simply can't accept the description of MY experience in using the GFX. My point, which I stand by, is that the GFX is versatile and has lots of "features" and buttons and dials (e.g., White Balance bracketing, ISO bracketing, and a multitude of ways to configure JPEgs), but using it was, FOR ME, like driving a minivan. Minivans are great to transport lots of people and cargo, but I don't think anyone who has driven a minivan has ever described it as a particularly enjoyable driving experience. Of course, your experience with minivans may be different. Perhaps you have a minivan and I hit a raw nerve.
Now, as to who is being snide and petty, you need to take a look in the mirror. You describe the X1D as a camera that was "designed to be a beautiful, semi-capable thing", implying that anyone who buys one is a shallow, superficial individual who is only concerned with the physical appearance of things. I think your biases have become completely apparent. There is a lot of anger, resentment and disdain dripping from those comments. You won't admit it here, but you know it.

This might a good example of tone and intention lost to the internet. I think what speedgraphic was implying, imo, was that the X1D is "semi capable" in that it doesn't do all things photographic. Nothing more. What camera does? I think, cosmetically speaking, that the GFX looks like a mini van and the X1D looks like a Porsche.

 

[mjr]

The Hasselblad may have the looks but certainly not the performance comparisons, doesn't it take 12 seconds to turn on and be ready to shoot? What about picking a focus point? I read you have to hold a button down for a while, then use the dials to move the point? There is no way it is as easy to use as a joystick, you can turn the GFX on, pick a point, focus and shoot very quickly. We all have different requirements but I would be careful of the comparisons, I couldn't care less about how a camera looks, I want it to be ready to shoot images as quickly as possible when I turn it on! My 911 did spend a lot of time in the garage though, lets hope that reliability isn't another area for comparison!

Anyway, who cares, just go and shoot stuff, must be more rewarding than this?

Mat

 

[atanabe]

Getting to be like the old days of Canon vs Nikon!

Can't we all just get along? Some may like the Hasselblad while others may choose the Fuji, sorry Algrove but Phase is just out of this league $ wise. But hey, believe it or not they all take pictures! :clap: So go out and shoot, enjoy your experience and share those images!

Thank you to the OP for sharing his experiences on the two platforms.