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!
X2D Thread
- Thread starter DB5
- Start date
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
The problem with small MF bodies is heat. The X1D had a LOT of early problems with heat. Even the GFR is bigger than expected (my guess is for similar reasons). Now think about the motors required for MF IBIS. They have to be many times more powerful and have much larger travel than FF IBIS motors.
Alas, physics is still a problem.
Matt (who would love to have IBIS as a manual focusing aid)
Alas, physics is still a problem.
Matt (who would love to have IBIS as a manual focusing aid)
Indeed.
Hope that H/Blad continues with the X2D what started in the X1D : a small, very portable, very light camera.
Fuji steered away from that with the GFX100 - it is targeting Phase, Hasselblad H and so on.
The size ( of the GFX100 ) I suspect its due to the ibis motors and specially due to the fact that HAS to have a integrated grip and therefore another battery - the ibis motor + recording in 4K video must drain battery quite a lot vs a single GFX battery.
I'll be a happy camper with the X2D if its stays true to the X1D ethos form - for everything else, you have H6D and so on.
Alas, still waiting to pickup my X1D, which will happen on Tuesday, but hope to pick up a X2D in the future - but for now, time to buy and save for XCD lenses, they lens lineup is exciting - a lot to be honest.
Shashin
Well-known member
I am not sure it will be a very large problem. Piezoelectric motors are very efficient. My understanding of IBIS is that the motion is not linear, moving in the opposite direction of camera motion, but rather it anticipates certain non-linear shake properties of human grip, which is why it does not work with mechanical shake on a tripod. I also think sensor size is less of a problem as shake is not proportional to absolute magnification, but more related to angle of view/format, solving for the perception of sharpness (just as CoC and the definition of "sharp" changes with format). But I might be wrong...
Still, Fuji thinks it can solve this problem.
I also hope Hasselblad sticks with the current form factor for the X2D, even if it’s at the expense of features. All I really want/need out of an X2D is the 100mp IMX461 sensor and a joystick for AF point selection, and suitable heat mitigation for long exposures. Hopefully they can do all of that in a body similar to the X1D.
I’d also love to see a live histogram, PDAF, and face/eye detection, but keeping a similar form factor is one of the most important things for me. Moving towards the body size of the GFX100 starts to defeat the purpose of mirrorless MF for my needs.
I’d also love to see a live histogram, PDAF, and face/eye detection, but keeping a similar form factor is one of the most important things for me. Moving towards the body size of the GFX100 starts to defeat the purpose of mirrorless MF for my needs.
PDAF on chip will definitely be there because it is already on the chip they don't have a choice. It would be silly to not use them.
When I last talked to hasselblad face/eye detection was not high on the priority list.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Well, look at how much harder FF IBIS was than µ4/3 IBIS. It took Sony years to match Olympus's performance.
Sensor size is a problem because the light rays have a longer distance to diverge. It's the same reason DoF is shallower on larger sensors even though the required magnification is smaller.
Of course, I'm arguing theory, and practice always wins.
--Matt
I think Hasselblad is in a difficult situation here. Many people criticized them for announcing (and even shipping) the X1D prematurely. I don't think they want a repeat of that with the successor product. Fuji can get away with saying "we're working on a 100MP follow-on and here's what it will look like" without having a near-production example that people can shoot with, because they're a multibillion dollar public company with vast resources. Everyone knows that they have the capability to bring that product to market.
If Hasselblad did the same thing, they'd be criticized for showing vaporware. They're a small, privately-held niche manufacturer, and their financial status (and even their ownership) is pretty opaque. They need to show a working camera that's essentially production-ready, and they need to be able to ship it soon after it's announced.
Of course, they also need to be thinking about the next iteration of the H-series (something Fuji doesn't have to worry about) and probably an update of some of the H lenses.
faberryman
Member
Hasselblad is owned by DJI, a multi-billion dollar Chinese technology company.
Add me to the list of people who think keeping the current X1D form factor is the most important thing. I'm not sure I could really exploit a 100MP sensor (although I'm certainly willing to find out), but some of the things that come with the new sensor (faster readout -> faster ES, for example) are pretty high on my list. I hardly ever use autofocus, although PDAF might change that. Having some vague notion of my depth of field/hyperfocal distance would be useful. A joystick to move the zoomed view around would be nice. A live histogram would be a godsend.
Nobody outside of DJI and Hasselblad (and their attorneys, one assumes) knows for sure if that's true. There's been no announcement, other than the original one about DJI acquiring a minority stake - that's what I meant about their ownership being opaque. DJI may own 20% of the company, 51%, or 100%.
Shashin
Well-known member
I am certainly not arguing that sensor size is irrelevant. Obviously mass is a problem. The size of the Piezoelectric motors themselves need to be scaled. I am unsure that heat is the underlying problem though--I used Piezoelectric stages on Microscopes which would move samples the same mass as or greater than a MFD sensor. Not sure overheating was a problem, but I never really checked...Well, look at how much harder FF IBIS was than µ4/3 IBIS. It took Sony years to match Olympus's performance.
Sensor size is a problem because the light rays have a longer distance to diverge. It's the same reason DoF is shallower on larger sensors even though the required magnification is smaller.
Of course, I'm arguing theory, and practice always wins.
--Matt
I am not sure the divergence of the light rays is an issue because format does not change that. The divergence of light rays (the light cone) is a product of f-number, not focal length. And here depth of field (an object space property) is not the issue, but depth of focus (an image space property), which again is a product of f-number, not focal length. For and equal angle of view, you need different magnification with different formats. But you also need greater motion with larger format to show the same motion blur which seems to cancel each other out.
I guess how far sensors using IBIS actually move is the question. Is the pixel pitch or CoC the defining variable. I simply don't know. When Konica Minolta engineers showed me the IBIS technology in action with a sensor, senor motion is not perceptible. So how does IBIS actually solve the problem of camera shake? I am not sure it is simply moving the sensor in opposition to camera motion. But like I said, I am unsure...
(It was Konica Minolta that invented the IBIS technology and used it in a camera, which makes it odd that Sony did not understand it any better than Olympus (KM engineers moved to Sony). Sony also used it with a FF camera A900 a year after Olympus first used it in their u4/3 E-510 DSLR, both are after KM used it in their Dimage A1 camera.)
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'm just a Mathematician, so I'm used to being wrong about the real world.
My assumption: angular shake is the predominant problem.
So a small angular perturbation of dtheta translates (pun intended) into a sensor shift of L*dtheta, where L is the distance from the sensor to the rear node. It's L that also scales with sensor size, along with the focal length of the lens. So larger sensors have to move further and faster than smaller sensors to correct for angular shake - never mind the larger mass!
Happy to be wrong - that means I learn something. :chug:
Best,
Matt
My assumption: angular shake is the predominant problem.
So a small angular perturbation of dtheta translates (pun intended) into a sensor shift of L*dtheta, where L is the distance from the sensor to the rear node. It's L that also scales with sensor size, along with the focal length of the lens. So larger sensors have to move further and faster than smaller sensors to correct for angular shake - never mind the larger mass!
Happy to be wrong - that means I learn something. :chug:
Best,
Matt
siddhaarta
Member
Very sad to hear that (too short a time to have a real influence on the companies strategy), curious to hear about his reasons but apparently some conflicts.
That's most unfortunate.
PeterA
Well-known member
I think Fuji confirmed that the SLR type body ( increase in height ) is to house IBIS and battery and ...the body on show (apparently) was by no means a finalised type at this stage. The form factor in my opinion is more welcome than current GFX 50s type which I have been testing - at this stage I think I would prefer the R type body for my purposes in 50 MP form - I will be purchasing the 100 megapixel version as well - very similar to Leica S form factor which was fantastic for my hands.
Christopher
Active member
I for one find the worst news that Ming Thein isn't at Hasselblad anymore. For me that isn't a good sign. We will see what Hasselblad does, but while I get that they would not want to repeat the announcement disaster of the X1D, I find the silence still troubling. I hope they do well and make some amazing cameras in the future as competition is always great. I would love to have a XxD one day, but for that the lenslineup and usage must improve quite a bit. Till then I will stick with Fuji.
Personally, the people I know who shoot Hasselblad are not mad about no X2D, but no news whatsoever about the H series. Most of them have invested a lot of money in their equipment and are now unsure what will happen. Lenses need updates, is there a 150Mp version coming? and so on.
Personally, the people I know who shoot Hasselblad are not mad about no X2D, but no news whatsoever about the H series. Most of them have invested a lot of money in their equipment and are now unsure what will happen. Lenses need updates, is there a 150Mp version coming? and so on.
In my mind I have given up on the X2D. It's a shame, it was the system I would have preferred at least initially.
The GFX-100 is probably the ultimate camera for me and it looks like I will be buying it. I may even start the system build up with the GFX-50, now.
Ming leaving Hasselblad is yet another bad sign for a company that appears to be, once again, struggling.
Another contributing factor is that I will also put my money with what I feel is the safest long term bet. The safest bet also happens to have the best camera and overall deal with C1 on offer!
The GFX-100 is probably the ultimate camera for me and it looks like I will be buying it. I may even start the system build up with the GFX-50, now.
Ming leaving Hasselblad is yet another bad sign for a company that appears to be, once again, struggling.
Another contributing factor is that I will also put my money with what I feel is the safest long term bet. The safest bet also happens to have the best camera and overall deal with C1 on offer!
Last edited: