Joe,
You're hardly an idiot, quite the opposite. Thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts on the comparison. And Dante would be proud! :ROTFL:
John
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!
"small" medium format choices - Leica vs Hasselblad vs Fuji
- Thread starter Paratom
- Start date
You're hardly an idiot, quite the opposite. Thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts on the comparison. And Dante would be proud! :ROTFL:
John
Shashin
Well-known member
What? Around here?? Admitting you own multiple systems (or every version of a 50mm Leica lens) is a badge of honor! No wilting violets in our group!
We don't have a problem--we could quit anytime we want. We just don't want to!!! Denial is just another river in Africa.
:ROTFL::angel::toocool::banghead:(Note to mods, we need some more emojis)
Yes, too many factors which influence the output to call any comparison of IQ between those systems as a fact.
Thank you for the info.
However I have stopped switching back and forth between C1,LR and Phocus (and others) because it is too much for me to work with 2 or 3 different types of software.
sure...anyways i find C1 better for leica SL DNG's too
vieri
Well-known member
About availability of lens and lens choices, let's not forget that the X1D can use all Hasselblad H lenses natively, thus adding zoom and tele lenses, while Fuji had to fill their lineup from scratch and without being able to count on an existing plateau of compatible lenses. Perhaps, on the downside, this is probably keeping H from speeding up new lenses' delivery a bit...
Best regards,
Vieri
Best regards,
Vieri
When I used the S2 years ago I switched to C1, then later C1 didnt support the Leica S any more so I switched to LR. Later with the M and some other cameras I ran various comparisons between C1 and LR - sometimes I prefered C1, sometimes LR.
Maybe I will testrun C1 again for the SL and see how big differences are, but in the end I really dont want to switch back and forth and also have invested time i LR and also want a software which works for all (including the Leica S system).
k-hawinkler
Well-known member
Does Hasselblad have an 100S-like camera ready to sell?
As far as I know x2d has been rumoured long time but lately it got silent. I would be interested to hear Hasselblads plans in this regard.
MGrayson
Subscriber and Workshop Member
Were any of these rumors from HB? All I sense is that the chattering has moved to Fuji because they are more vocal about unreleased products.
Sometimes there is just no new news. The Leica S3 is coming. There was a lot of talk when preproduction samples first appeared. Now it's been quiet as there is nothing new to say until it ships.
--Matt
No. On his way out the door, Ming Thein did drop a gratuitous comment that he was familiar with the product roadmap for the "X2D" from his time at Hasselblad. He said he thought the specs at that time were excellent (or something to that effect), but he had not seen any recent updates to the roadmap. I took that as confirmation that an "X2D" is on its way at some point, but there has never been any doubt in my mind. There is no successor to the current Sony 50MP sensor, and I think Hasselblad has reached the end of the line with what it can do with that sensor. The successor to the X1D will appear. We just don't know when, or what the spec will be beyond incorporating the new Sony 100MP sensor. I will probably buy one, but I am not losing any sleep over it. The current incarnation of the X1D and the XCD lenses already work exceptionally well for me. The X1D is not a limiting factor in the success or failure of my photographs.
Acc. to blog.kasson.com, most Hasselblad H lenses are good on the 5.3 um sensor of the X1D and GFX if stopped down by +/- 2 stops but at open aperture corner-to-corner they are no match for the native Hasselblad XCD or Fuji GF lenses. With the future 100 MP 3.76 um sensors, that difference in quality will be even more apparent.
Your link to PDR (photographic dynamic range) graph is not related to long exposure noise (caused by heat in the camera). AFAIK, all manufacturers except Hasselblad 'require' a dark frame subtraction for optimal results when shooting exposures longer than a couple of seconds. That is quite inconvenient when shooting with very long exposures (GFX and X1D max is 60 min).
Hasselblad has apparently designed and tuned its sensor/amplification pipeline so that it does not require the dark frame subtraction (LENR) to produce optimal quality. I do not know more about it.
Godfrey
Well-known member
I looked at Jim Kasson's site. The differences in "image quality" (let's be clearer and say "resolution and contrast", okay? because there is no measure for image quality) seem to be within 5%. For a 50 Mpixel image rendered to an 11x14 or even 22x28 inch print, that difference is likely invisible to the eye and far less important than the content and rendering qualities. I guess if you're making 36x48 inch prints, or larger, it starts to be a factor. Never mind 100 Mpixel images.
Once upon a time, I was making a significant percentage of my income from selling prints. Most of the prints I've sold are 6x8 to 11x17 inch image area. The rare sale of a 20"-plus sized print at a much higher price amounted to a miniscule fraction of my income. Objectively, I could get away with a 5 Mpixel, FourThirds format camera for probably 90% of the work I've sold; APS-C and FF at 24 Mpixel is most certainly more than enough. However, I love Medium Format and larger-than-FF sized format for their imaging qualities, and Hasselblad for its lenses.
So I don't think the issues Jim mentions are all that important to me.
An X1D with the 21mm lens, maybe the 120 macro, and adapting my existing V system and even Leica lenses to it, are probably all I'll ever want, if I even want that enough to spend the approx $10-14K needed to acquire it. I saw a couple of X1D bodies going secondhand for $4000 plus or minus ... I might just start with that only and a mount adapter, see where it takes me. I can pay for it by selling my WATE, which I don't use enough to warrant its price.
Hmm. I shouldn't have looked at this thread, ya know? Sigh...
G
Just a meta-comment from my side:
- After following this site and others for a few years, I know that those who constantly look over the fence for another system, eventually will find another system, throw out what they have, take a loss, and declare their newfound love. Repeat.
- The differences between the systems discussed here are marginal, and barely visible to a neutral observer looking at real pictures
- You take the best pictures with the system you feel comfortable with, and that you know.
- I think personal shooting preferences are the most important factor in choosing a system.
- In most cases, post-processing competence will have a larger impact on image quality than choice of MF brand/system.
- You save a lot of money by not changing system, even if your system is "expensive" (aren't they all?), and build it over time.
- After following this site and others for a few years, I know that those who constantly look over the fence for another system, eventually will find another system, throw out what they have, take a loss, and declare their newfound love. Repeat.
- The differences between the systems discussed here are marginal, and barely visible to a neutral observer looking at real pictures
- You take the best pictures with the system you feel comfortable with, and that you know.
- I think personal shooting preferences are the most important factor in choosing a system.
- In most cases, post-processing competence will have a larger impact on image quality than choice of MF brand/system.
- You save a lot of money by not changing system, even if your system is "expensive" (aren't they all?), and build it over time.
Last edited:
Very, very true.
With all due respect to Mr. Kasson, his blog is probably the best thing that could've happened to anyone looking to pick up second-hand HC or HCD lenses in recent memory.
Yes, the XCD and GF lenses are great, and are probably objectively better than the HC/HCD lenses on paper and some real-world tests, but the HC and HCD lenses are still perfectly adequate IMHO despite their age (as long as one understands the AF limitations on X1D/GFX).
I've got two prints similarly sized (24 inches in height) next to each other hanging in my office - one taken with the H4D-40 and HCD 35-90, the other the X1D and 45mm XCD, at similar apertures. They both look comparable to me from a contrast/resolution perspective at the same viewing distance. Yes it's apples and oranges, but I don't think there's much of a difference in reality.
Will there be a large different with future sensors? Maybe, but I'd wait and do one's own tests before writing them off.
Howard.... I am in total agreement with you even though I am using a Fuji vs Hassy.... just personal preference. What I have found is that the advancement in user friendly functions vs what I am so used to (3100) just make me gravitate to the Fuji even though the MP count is halved. Printing to my usual size of 40 inches on the wide side is a breeze with AI Giga and I have full movements at 72mm and beyond with my Actus. Wide with movements is on the way with new lens releases.
The future looks great.....
Victor
Victor, your comment about AI Giga is interesting. I bought it in early December, and I have only had the time to try it on one 200% upscale of an X1D file. I compared it to a 200% upscale using PS 2019 with the Preserve Details 2.0 method. I could not see any improvement using AI Giga. I was wondering if you will only see differences with lesser quality files or more extreme upscaling. I gather your experience is quite different.
re: the GFX, was looking through RAWdigger and noticed the Raw size is quite larger than the output size...i wonder where that extra data goes..
Raw Image Width : 8280
Raw Image Height : 6208
---- RAF ----
Raw Image Full Size : 9216x6210
Fuji Layout : 10 11 9 8
Raw Image Full Width : 9216
Raw Image Full Height : 6210
Bits Per Sample : 14
Raw Image Width : 8280
Raw Image Height : 6208
---- RAF ----
Raw Image Full Size : 9216x6210
Fuji Layout : 10 11 9 8
Raw Image Full Width : 9216
Raw Image Full Height : 6210
Bits Per Sample : 14