H6X or XF

[Jamgolf]

H6X
+ True Focus
+ 1/2000s flash sync (with orange dot lenses)
- Older platform
- No modern non-portraiture tools such as focus stacking, timelapse etc.
- price is similar to XF but seems too high for an old platform

XF
? Honeybee autofocus
+ new & upgradable platform
+ ProfotoAir Remote built in
+ focus trim to fine tune autofocus for each lens
+ many non-portraiture tools e.g. focus stacking, seisomgraph, timelapse, hyperfocal
+ user interface
- lower flash sync speed when compared to 1/2000s
/ price similar to H6X but pre-owned/refurbished XF bodies are available for less

Seems that XF has advantage on paper but I have a couple of questions:
1. How much more useful is having 1/2000s flash sync vs. 1/1000s, in practice?
2. Is Honeybee autofocus comparable to True Focus or is True Focus still considered significantly better?

 

[dougpeterson]

1. How much more useful is having 1/2000s flash sync vs. 1/1000s, in practice?

The XF syncs at 1/1600 with most lenses and 1/1000 with a couple of the bigger lenses. In broad direct daylite one can shoot wide open at ISO50 1/1600th and sync with flash (I know because I do).

Also if you need very fast speed (e.g. to freeze motion on an object when you can't use flash) the XF offers 1/4000th max shutter speed.

2. Is Honeybee autofocus comparable to True Focus or is True Focus still considered significantly better?

This is a question you really must answer from your own testing. Each will have advantages in different light, use cases, focal lengths etc. TrueFocus handles focus-and-recompose which is especially helpful when making large recompositions with a wide angle lens shot wide open with a static subject. The XF has one million pixels in a very small area and offers extremely high precision as a result. When evaluating the opinions you receive remember that the XF, like any new camera platform, underwent rapid and significant firmware improvements to autofocus performance in the months following it's initial release.

We have HX bodies and XF bodies and can gladly arrange the appropriate testing. It's too bad you couldn't make it across town for our texas roadshow. But we can arrange for you to test what you need regardless.

 

[voidshatter]

I'm a keyboard-based photographer so I can't answer your questions with my own experience, but from what I heard over the internet (a friend of mine who has used both):

1) The advantage of 1/2000s sync vs. 1/1600s sync is marginal and can be ignored in most cases;

2) I was told by my friend that True Focus is still a slightly better option, because the coverage of XF+ AF points is still low which would require "focus + re-composition" style shooting, where True Focus still has a higher keeper rate.

 

[Jamgolf]

With a central focus point/area, focus and recompose is necessary, unless subject/pt-of-focus happens to be exactly in the middle of the frame.
So re-composition results in having focus somewhere other than where you want it to be.
Hasselblad attempts to solve this by using the accelerometer and its algorithms to compensate for re-composition.
I'd really like to understand how Honeybee system addresses this problem?

 

[dougpeterson]

With a central focus point/area, focus and recompose is necessary, unless subject/pt-of-focus happens to be exactly in the middle of the frame.
So re-composition results in having focus somewhere other than where you want it to be.
Hasselblad attempts to solve this by using the accelerometer and its algorithms to compensate for re-composition.
I'd really like to understand how Honeybee system addresses this problem?

The same way the Contax 645AF, Leica S, Rollei/Sinar/Leaf Hy6, Rollei 6008, H1, H2, and H3 did. All of which many photographer use/used for brilliant photography.

TrueFocus isn't a magic bullet. It doesn't compensate for subject movement, the photographer's non-angular movement, or the nuance of what part of the subject that fell inside the focus area was used for focus. It's a good idea, and it's well implemented, and if/when I could use it on the XF I absolutely would. But it's not a panacea for focus nor required to take great images with consistently good focus.

You should try TrueFocus. You should try the XF. That's the only way you'll get a real answer to your question.

 

[Jamgolf]

I was not implying that True Focus is the panacea for all focus related problems, I was just wondering if Honeybee system offers an alternative approach to the problem resulting from focus & recompose.

I have actually not used too many auto focus lenses in the past 5 years. Almost all my lenses have been manual focus. With my favorite manual focus Leica-R lenses that I used for portraiture (with Nikon D800) or the Noctilux, I developed a habit that worked for me. I'd try to achieve perfect focus on subject's eye and then dial the focus (to or fro) just a bit to compensate for re-framing. I would sit in a chair every night and practice this routine for 30 minutes straight. My wife could not understand what on earth I was doing taking 100 photos of a chart everyday - But it helped me "learn" the lens and I could get repeatable results.

With auto focus, I am not in charge. But I know the compensation is needed. It has to happen somehow.

Yes, you are right. Trying an H?X is probably the only way to find out for sure.

 

[Jamgolf]

BTW - I did own an H1 for a very brief period. I kept getting "focus drive error" (something to do with lens motor).
Tried 3 different 100/2.2 lenses and finally gave up on the lenses and the H2.

Here is the only shot I ever captured with the said H1+100/2.2 (manual focus and my afore mentioned slight adjustment ritual).

 

[dougpeterson]

I developed a habit that worked for me. I'd try to achieve perfect focus on subject's eye and then dial the focus (to or fro) just a bit to compensate for re-framing. I would sit in a chair every night and practice this routine for 30 minutes straight. My wife could not understand what on earth I was doing taking 100 photos of a chart everyday - But it helped me "learn" the lens and I could get repeatable results.

With auto focus, I am not in charge. But I know the compensation is needed. It has to happen somehow.

You are still in charge.

Place AF on the rear button. Focus, recompose, and then manually tune the focus if needed. Nearly all the XF lenses allow the focus to be tweaked manually while in AF, and those that don't have a very fast clutch to change to MF. Personally I very subtly lean forward; small enough that it's more of shifting my weight toward my toes than an actual lean. Or you can use the camera in full MF mode, similar to your Leica, but with the huge added benefit of a focus-confirmation system to tell you when you're in focus according to the high precision AF sensor.

This is why I say hands on time is the only real answer to your question. There are many ways to skin the cat.

 

[Paul2660]

My experience with the AF on the XF Is that if it gets a lock quickly odds are it's very accurate. If it hunts around a bit then shows lock that can be inaccurate. Very. XF also seems to prefer bright subject matter or ones with a lot of contrast.

Telephoto work seems more of an issue also as the distant subject if not brightly illuminated will often for me get an inaccurate lock.

Paul Caldwell

 

[jvpictures]

You are still in charge.

Place AF on the rear button. Focus, recompose, and then manually tune the focus if needed. Nearly all the XF lenses allow the focus to be tweaked manually while in AF, and those that don't have a very fast clutch to change to MF. Personally I very subtly lean forward; small enough that it's more of shifting my weight toward my toes than an actual lean. Or you can use the camera in full MF mode, similar to your Leica, but with the huge added benefit of a focus-confirmation system to tell you when you're in focus according to the high precision AF sensor.

This is why I say hands on time is the only real answer to your question. There are many ways to skin the cat.

Hi Doug, are u sure about this "leaning forward" to manually adjust the re-composing geometry error? Shouldn't it be leaning backwards instead, assuming you take a steady portraiture in portrait camera modus? Thus, when recomposing after having taken focus on one eye/face of your model the radius is getting behind your subject...so adjusting would rather be "leaning backwards", isn't it? Maybe I did not understand your technique fully....

 

[bernardl]

H6X
+ True Focus
+ 1/2000s flash sync (with orange dot lenses)
- Older platform
- No modern non-portraiture tools such as focus stacking, timelapse etc.
- price is similar to XF but seems too high for an old platform

XF
? Honeybee autofocus
+ new & upgradable platform
+ ProfotoAir Remote built in
+ focus trim to fine tune autofocus for each lens
+ many non-portraiture tools e.g. focus stacking, seisomgraph, timelapse, hyperfocal
+ user interface
- lower flash sync speed when compared to 1/2000s
/ price similar to H6X but pre-owned/refurbished XF bodies are available for less

Seems that XF has advantage on paper but I have a couple of questions:
1. How much more useful is having 1/2000s flash sync vs. 1/1000s, in practice?
2. Is Honeybee autofocus comparable to True Focus or is True Focus still considered significantly better?

Some comments/questions:
- The H6 physical body hasn't changed, but the platform is brand new and is going to evolve quickly since it is largely common to the X1D with much higher sales numbers that either the XF or the H6, this is especially true when using the H6X with a Hasselblad back
- I would add to the + of the XF, when used with P1 backs, better power mgt with sharing both batteries, the availability of the excellent Schneider lenses, but as minus their size and weight.
- Are the neat capabilities of the XF available with non P1 backs?
- I would add to the + of the H6 a better ergonomical design (at least in my hand), a more discrete look (subjective, but I would not want to take the XF outside the studio or a pro shooting setting), a lighter weight and a better damped mirror, support for film backs,
- If considering the P1 backs, I would add as a major minus the lack of double card slot which remains an incredible oversight in my book. This being said the backup capability of the H6D backs isn't working yet so big minus for Hassy as of now, but at least they have the physical slots available.

Cheers,
Bernard

 

[Jamgolf]

- The H6 physical body hasn't changed, but the platform is brand new and is going to evolve quickly since it is largely common to the X1D

Hmmm - I'm not sure if the camera platform is brand new. I mean the digital back platfrom is new but I'm not sure that is true for the camera body. May be it is.
I don't see anything on the product page.
XF has a very user friendly touch screen interface and the usability & customizability seems outstanding.
Having similar features on H6X would mean a new camera hardware platform. I don't think that has happend yet.

- I would add to the + of the H6 a better ergonomical design (at least in my hand), a more discrete look (subjective, but I would not want to take the XF outside the studio or a pro shooting setting), a lighter weight and a better damped mirror, support for film backs,

I've owned an H1 before and I've had a chance to handle an XF. Personally I dont see an ergomomic advantage either way.
Aesthetically, I find the two-tone color scheme used on H bodies to be very cheesy. I'd much rather have an all black camera body.
I also think the white colored "PHASE ONE" written on the XF body is very loud. If I ever buy an XF I'd cover up that obnoxiousness immediately.

 

[f8orbust]

H6X

+An open system - you can use it with H/B or 3rd party DBs, or even film backs.
+Mirrorless option for your lenses (via an adapter) with the X1D.

XF

-Closed system, even to P1's own pre-IQ generation backs, so you can't even keep one of those around to act as a back-up.

 

[BANKER1]

H6X

+An open system - you can use it with H/B or 3rd party DBs, or even film backs.
+Mirrorless option for your lenses (via an adapter) with the X1D.

XF

-Closed system, even to P1's own pre-IQ generation backs, so you can't even keep one of those around to act as a back-up.

What! No drumbeat about a closed system! No wailing and gnashing of teeth that it will not accept other backs, even their own! Since I am not familiar with Phase, this is the first I have heard it is a closed system. The silence is quite deafening. Where is the angst and outrage that Phase closed their system? I am sorry MR is not around to mount an all out campaign against such an outrage.

 

[dougpeterson]

No wailing and gnashing of teeth that it will not accept other backs, even their own!

The XF is compatible with any Phase One back introduced from 2011 forward, and the DF+ will accept any back made from 2004 to 2017 (still going). It's true that the XF is not compatible with P+ backs, the last of which was introduced in 2008. Personally I would have loved to have seen them add that compatibility, but I understand why they did not; the P/P+ generation interface/OS/protocol was developed 13 years ago and at some point even companies that value backwards compatibility have to call it quits on a product.

Every Phase One XF is compatible with every Credo, IQ, IQ2, and IQ3 back (15 total models) and will support newer backs for quite a while. And you can still buy the Phase One DF+ bodies that support every back released since 2004 including those introduced in 2017, 5 years after the DF+ was released.

Re "other backs" - as far as I know, no one has been turned down or locked out of making backs for the XF, but rather no one has asked. Hasselblad is heavily focused on making backs for the H body and Team Phase One and Hassy combine for nearly all the volume of digital backs made today.

Phase One has never serialized their backs/bodies; any body can be used with any compatible back. They support every back they've ever made in Capture One 10, both their raw files and direct tethering. They provide service and support on backs that haven't been made new in over a decade. They've added numerous major features to the IQ and XF since launch, provided via free Feature Updates.

In other words, they aren't perfect - no company is. But Phase One, in my opinion, have a stellar track record of long-term support and forward/backward compatible of their products.

 

[bab]

There is only one sensible answer and it's a financial decision barring plus and minuses with both systems which will both give you identical printed results.
If your leasing X if your buying H, and if you could get some real advice from someone who sells both or owns both it still won't matter.
Phase is priced to be leased. Always has been!
Hasselblad is priced to purchase. Always has been!

Good Luck!

 

[algrove]

H6X

+An open system - you can use it with H/B or 3rd party DBs, or even film backs.
+Mirrorless option for your lenses (via an adapter) with the X1D.

XF

-Closed system, even to P1's own pre-IQ generation backs, so you can't even keep one of those around to act as a back-up.

Got this far down the postings and had to reply here to the "Closed System" comment.

Do you use the XF? If you do you are missing on a large number of Mamiya AF lenses that work just fine on the XF.

I use the 300 and 105-210 ULD. EXIF data transfers just fine. On the manual side I use the 500/5.6 also. These lenses can resolve fine details beyond anything I expected before using them. Also some use the Mamiya fisheye ULD.

 

[BigBoy]

Hasselblad biggest pro is that you can use H lens on four different camera bodies, Hasselblad H, Leica S, Fujifilm Gfx 50s, and Hasselblad x1d.

 

[Jamgolf]

Phase is priced to be leased. Always has been!
Hasselblad is priced to purchase. Always has been!

Thanks for your input. Although I don't quite follow what you mean by the above statement, since both H6X and XF camera bodies are priced exactly the same i.e. $8K USD.
A pre-owned XF body is a possibility at $5-6K. Finding a pre-owned H6X (or even H5X) is very difficult.

 

[BANKER1]

Finding a pre-owned H6X (or even H5X) is very difficult.[/QUOTE]

Wonder why?