"small" medium format choices - Leica vs Hasselblad vs Fuji

[B L]

Does Hasselblad have an 100S-like camera ready to sell?

I think they have but they dont want to tell anybody about it. I think waiting for the right moment.

 

[B L]

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.

Chris,I am puzzled actually. Lets believe what Jim wrote about H lenses not "good enough" for 50 MP sensors. And Hasselblad has been marketing H series cameras with 50+ MP sensors for years.

 

[PeterA]

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.

Of course you are quite correct in everything you say as far as I am concerned - except for the last line I have bolded - which is the #1 reason I switched to Fuji...

This sounds like good old fashioned sensible advice - now tell it to all the people ( me included) who were big time invested in Leica R and Sinar MFD systems and tech camera systems....just two examples of why it is not always a good idea to stay with what you have - sometimes what you have ends up being not much.

i'm not saying Hasselblad is going to become a failed company - all the indications are that they at least have a large growing company as some kind of investor / shareholder - but the competitive squeeze is on in what was previously high end camera gear - from many directions.

Therefore, there is no 'stability' or certainty technology is disrupting the status quo and will continue to do so and this applies to every company competing for what is largely discretionary spending.

We only have to look at the advancements in image quality made from below ( 4/3rds and aps ) V so called full frame 35mm as well as continual improvement in what is capable out of mobile phones to understand that there can be no 'blind' certainty anymore - it is only a matter of time before high quality video grabs from motion will equal teh quality one can get out of a still frame shot - so much for decisive moments...

So I have decided to invest less cashola given the choice between equal or similar performance outcomes when it comes to all things digital. The only 'winning strategy' for companies competing in an increasingly crowded and commodified landscape is lower cost ( higher value for money ) OR higher cost for the highest marginal unit of gain - which is a niche strategy.

In my case I am fortunate to be able to afford anything I wish to afford as far as camera gear goes - it isn't about 'saving money' - for me it is about maximising the duration of the working relationship between myself and the tools I use - and that means minimising the risk of unexpected manufacturer exit. I don't have to concern myself with thinking about whether there is a product roadmap and who is in control of this product roadmap and whether the company can afford to deliver and keep delivering when I buy something from Fuji - or should I say ( more correctly) I feel like I am carrying less risk in the overall Fuji ecosystem - not that there isn't any.

This is not to add to what appears to be a growing flame in this thread in danger of becoming yet another "my thing is better than your thing" - just an explanation of making a choice between various excellent systems based on my thinking be it right or wrong.

Pete

 

[SrMphoto]

Chris,I am puzzled actually. Lets believe what Jim wrote about H lenses not "good enough" for 50 MP sensors. And Hasselblad has been marketing H series cameras with 50+ MP sensors for years.

I do not think Jim wrote that the H lenses are not good enough. He tested the lenses he owned, most of them were not the best ones HB has to offer (e.g., HC 35mm which he actually liked on Fuji) and he tested them all on GFX, not on Hasselblad's cameras.

In the meantime, HC lenses are used to generate stunning results with 100MP cameras.

 

[thompsonkirk]

Can we conclude the thread by agreeing that for any individual photographer, other variables matter just as much as any objective difference we’ve been able to identify among the three systems?

And maybe that we can’t even predict whether 50 vs. 100MP sensors would make an interesting difference for more than a few of us?

Kirk

 

[k-hawinkler]

Why? :facesmack:

 

[dougpeterson]

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.

Every Phase One IQ4 is calibrated at the factory against a variety of ambient temperatures, ISOs, and shutter speeds. That calibration data is loaded into non-volatile memory. The result is that no dark frame is required at the time of capture, but the end resulting quality of long exposures is exceptional.

But it's true that, before the IQ4, you had to jump through hoops to disable dark frame reduction on a P1 back.

This sort of thing only matters at exposures of a few seconds and longer, which explains why most manufacturers barely pay attention to it. Imagine the number of prosumers that ever take a multi-second exposure. But for P1 long-exposures have been a key use-case since the P45+.

 

[dougpeterson]

And maybe that we can’t even predict whether 50 vs. 100MP sensors would make an interesting difference for more than a few of us?

This implies that if two generations of a camera have different resolutions that the main or most important difference is the resolution.

Depending on what and how you shoot any number of other differences might matter more. Dynamic range, color, focus speed/ease/precision, overall usability, etc all might come ahead of pure resolution.

 

[dj may]

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.

Well said.

 

[jotloob]

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.

As dj may already posted : very well said .

erlingmm , are you aware that Dante will not like your post ? ? ?:banghead:
I hope it will not have negative consequences for you . :ROTFL:

 

[vjbelle]

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.

With higher pixel counts the difference between AI Giga and other methods diminishes. The real power comes into play with lesser MP files. However it is the only upsampling method I use as it does have the edge over everything else. I upsample my files to 600 DPI so that no other upsampling is done in my printing workflow. At 40 inches that means 24,000 pixels in the long direction. Upsampling a GFX files takes about three minutes on my PC.

Victor

 

[hcubell]

With higher pixel counts the difference between AI Giga and other methods diminishes. The real power comes into play with lesser MP files. However it is the only upsampling method I use as it does have the edge over everything else. I upsample my files to 600 DPI so that no other upsampling is done in my printing workflow. At 40 inches that means 24,000 pixels in the long direction. Upsampling a GFX files takes about three minutes on my PC.

Victor

Thanks. I need to do some more work with it.

 

[Godfrey]

Probably true. But boring. :ROTFL:

LOL! Love it. The gods know this addiction rules our financial future, eh? And "the gods are malicious, tricksy, and swift to thwart..."

G

 

[drunkenspyder]

Every Phase One IQ4 is calibrated at the factory against a variety of ambient temperatures, ISOs, and shutter speeds. That calibration data is loaded into non-volatile memory. The result is that no dark frame is required at the time of capture, but the end resulting quality of long exposures is exceptional.

But it's true that, before the IQ4, you had to jump through hoops to disable dark frame reduction on a P1 back.

This sort of thing only matters at exposures of a few seconds and longer, which explains why most manufacturers barely pay attention to it. Imagine the number of prosumers that ever take a multi-second exposure. But for P1 long-exposures have been a key use-case since the P45+.

This was a huge selling point for me in moving from the Trichro to the IQ4. That and the LCC process on tech cam.

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

But the sensors on those cameras were significantly larger, like 52% larger surface area. So the pixels were something like 4.8 microns on the 100 MP sensors. On the new 100 MP sensor the Pixels are on a 44x33 area, meaning they are 3.81 pixels.

The other point is that it seems that Fuji has developed a really excellent line of lenses for the GFX, at least as Jim Kasson measured. The H-lenses were quite a bit off in peak performance. So, Jim sold of all his H and V series lenses.

With the X-series on Hasselblad, we have calculated MTF data, with diffraction taken into account. But no testing like Jim Kasson has done.

Best regards
Erik

Chris,I am puzzled actually. Lets believe what Jim wrote about H lenses not "good enough" for 50 MP sensors. And Hasselblad has been marketing H series cameras with 50+ MP sensors for years.

 

[jng]

With the X-series on Hasselblad, we have calculated MTF data, with diffraction taken into account. But no testing like Jim Kasson has done.

Hi Erik,

Are the MTF charts for the XCD lenses indeed not based on actual measurements as they were (as I thought) for the older Hasselblad Zeiss lenses? Whatever the case, the XCD lenses are so good in practice that these discussions, while certainly interesting, are a bit academic (this coming from a life-long academic ).

Thanks.

John