Hasselblad Teaser and Upcoming Announcement

[gerald.d]

Hello Darr,

Thank you for insulting me, you just made my point. I am blown away by your approach, which also perfectly makes my point: get a camera and then know what to do with it. I go the other way round: I look for the best tool for my job, not try to find a job for a (great) tool, and - besides insulting me - you haven't answered any of my points regarding specific uses for the GFX 100.



I am sure he or she would, but that doesn't answer my specific user-cases considerations.

Best regards,

Vieri

I would be more than happy to trade my IQ3 100 for the Fuji. Just sweeten the deal with a little cash my way.

If it did multi-shot, I’d even seriously consider a straight swap.

Regardless of your hypothetical arguments as to why - it would appear - no-one would ever consider purchasing the camera, from all reports, Fuji have been totally caught off-guard with the demand for it.

Weird that. It seems the market for cameras doesn’t work the way you think it should.

 

[gerald.d]

- Architectural: no professional architectural photographer would choose the GFX 100 (or the X1D) against, say, a tech camera + back;

Except of course, the Fuji can be mounted to a tech camera and deliver a lot of benefits over a “traditional” MFDB.

Same goes for the Hassy of course.

 

[vieri]

I would be more than happy to trade my IQ3 100 for the Fuji. Just sweeten the deal with a little cash my way.

If it did multi-shot, I’d even seriously consider a straight swap.

Regardless of your hypothetical arguments as to why - it would appear - no-one would ever consider purchasing the camera, from all reports, Fuji have been totally caught off-guard with the demand for it.

Weird that. It seems the market for cameras doesn’t work the way you think it should.

Gerald,

all arguments aside, if purchases of technology worked following reason and logical thinking, lots of manufacturers would be bankrupt (and would have been for a long time) :ROTFL: Having been around on photography forums as long as I have been, I just have been noticing how very, very few people are actually purpose-oriented when purchasing their gear and I simply said so. An argument could be made that if I was so wrong, people wouldn't need to attack me personally rather than refuting my arguments: they could just dismiss them and be happy with their purchases. Instead, all these jerky reactions (besides proving my point) tell me that I probably I hit a nerve, sorry about that

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[onasj]

Even if that's the case, who's gonna cut the sensor for them? I doubt that Sony would. The volume just isn't there.

Although, if they did, that would be something.

No sensor cutting needed! Just mount the sensor in the camera and digitally output the central 40x40 mm.

The math for why the XCD lenses can (almost) cover a 40x40 square crop of the 53.4x40 sensor is in my earlier posts in this thread. In brief, 40xsqrt(2) is only a tiny bit larger than the diagonal of 44x33, which we know (and Hassy’s MTF curves confirm) are covered by XCD lens image circles.

 

[gerald.d]

Gerald,

all arguments aside, if purchases of technology worked following reason and logical thinking, lots of manufacturers would be bankrupt (and would have been for a long time) :ROTFL: Having been around on photography forums as long as I have been, I just have been noticing how very, very few people are actually purpose-oriented when purchasing their gear and I simply said so. An argument could be made that if I was so wrong, people wouldn't need to attack me personally rather than refuting my arguments: they could just dismiss them and be happy with their purchases. Instead, all these jerky reactions (besides proving my point) tell me that I probably I hit a nerve, sorry about that

Best regards,

Vieri

Maybe people don’t have as much time as you do to argue on Internet forums?

There are a multitude of reasons as to why the camera will be very successful, and not all of them are down to the stupidity and inability of the purchaser to think logically.

No-one owes you an explanation. Especially not with the tone you have taken.

 

[pegelli]

So far, however, you mostly listed uses for which the GFX 100 is not the best tool for the job:

- Landscape: try hiking 10 miles with the GFX and lenses and you'll wish you had a different, lighter system;
- Architectural: no professional architectural photographer would choose the GFX 100 (or the X1D) against, say, a tech camera + back;
- Portraits: as I said, that is probably the best application for the GFX 100, however - again - if you work outside with flashes a leaf-shutter solution would suit a professional's needs better.

I know you are trying to make a point, but these argumets sound a bit lame to me:

1) Landscape: If you strike the desired balance between weight and megapixels different from the way you do the Fuji GFX 100 can certainly be the best tool for the job
2) Architectural: Again, if you strike the balance between weight/convenience and easier use while still having a lot of MP's in the field difference the GFX 100 can easily come out on top of many other cameras
3) Portraits: Not all portraits are outside with flash, plenty of cases where a leaf shutter isn't needed and the GFX is perfect for the job

So while your point is valid that the purpose is sometimes overlooked when buying a camera I think you're undervalueing many use cases for other users where the GFX 100 outperforms many (if not all) others once you put all aspects on the scale.


And pls. note, I have no beef in this game, I don't have anything bigger than 24x36 mm which suits my own purposes fine.

 

[vieri]

Maybe people don’t have as much time as you do to argue on Internet forums?

There are a multitude of reasons as to why the camera will be very successful, and not all of them are down to the stupidity and inability of the purchaser to think logically.

No-one owes you an explanation. Especially not with the tone you have taken.

Gerald,

take it easy - I never said that anyone owes me anything, and I am not the one going down the road of personal attacks. I never said anything about stupidity, so please don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken. I just listed a series of the most common photographic applications and listed my reasons why I think the GFX 100 is not the best tool for those applications. That's it. Feel free to refute my arguments, or ignore them, whatever suits you best. I am sure the Fuji GFX 100's sales will be very successful, as I said it's a technological marvel. I will, however, keep thinking that there are better tools for most of the photographic applications I listed, if that's ok by you.

I also stand by my general remark about the way technology purchases work nowadays, i.e. not following logical / purpose-oriented thinking, and again feel free to refute that or ignore it, as you wish. However, I think it's hard to ignore that we live in a marketing-oriented society, and that it's very, very hard to argue i.e. that people owning an iPhone 7 needed to upgrade to an iPhone 8 because of those extra features the 8 had, versus being convinced by the power of marketing / ads - and that is just to make one example.

Again, I am sorry if I hit a nerve - of course, not everyone need to be purpose-oriented when purchasing gear, so enjoy your gear of choice and don't mind my remarks.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[vieri]

I know you are trying to make a point, but these argumets sound a bit lame to me:

1) Landscape: If you strike the desired balance between weight and megapixels different from the way you do the Fuji GFX 100 can certainly be the best tool for the job
2) Architectural: Again, if you strike the balance between weight/convenience and easier use while still having a lot of MP's in the field difference the GFX 100 can easily come out on top of many other cameras
3) Portraits: Not all portraits are outside with flash, plenty of cases where a leaf shutter isn't needed and the GFX is perfect for the job

So while your point is valid that the purpose is sometimes overlooked when buying a camera I think you're undervalueing many use cases for other users where the GFX 100 outperforms many (if not all) others once you put all aspects on the scale.


And pls. note, I have no beef in this game, I don't have anything bigger than 24x36 mm which suits my own purposes fine.

Hello pagelli,

thank you for your comment. Of course, people can have very different requirements than mine and be perfectly happy with the GFX 100, that goes without saying. Your counter-arguments, however, as just as weak, if I might say so:

1) The same argument can go the other way;
2) I am not talking about weight/convenience, I am talking about the right lenses for the job. Most professional architectural photographers use tech cameras with digital backs, or FF cameras with T/S lenses.
3) I am not saying it cannot be done, just that there are better tools for the job, which your argument kinda proves: there might be plenty of cases where the GFX is perfect, as there are plenty where it's not;

I am not undervaluing anything, I just made my personal list of points why I personally wouldn't buy the GFX 100. Others can have different requirements and, therefore, come to different conclusions. I have no problems about that of course, I am just surprised that people feel so aggressively about the whole thing. It's just gear, folks.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Christopher]

Well hiking...

GFX100, 23, 32-64, 100-200 is 4170g 50r instead of 100 it goes below Hasselblad to 3550g...

X1D, 21, 35-75, 138plus Converter is 3860g

So weight certainly is a zero argument. Especially when being used to carry a phase one system with 12-14kg or a kid

 

[vieri]

Well hiking...

GFX100, 23, 32-64, 100-200 is 4170g 50r instead of 100 it goes below Hasselblad to 3550g...

X1D, 21, 35-75, 138plus Converter is 3860g

So weight certainly is a zero argument. Especially when being used to carry a phase one system with 12-14kg or a kid

Christopher,

thank you for your comment. Well, it all depends on your choice of lenses, I guess. In my case:

X1D, 725gr + 21mm, 600 gr + 30mm, 550 gr + 45mm, 417 gr = 2.292 gr

GFX 100, 1.400 gr + 23mm, 845 gr + 32-64mm, 875 gr = 3.120 gr

which is quite a difference in a backpack.

Of course, coming from Phase and / or kids, both are featherweight

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

Gerald,

take it easy - I never said that anyone owes me anything, and I am not the one going down the road of personal attacks. I never said anything about stupidity, so please don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken. I just listed a series of the most common photographic applications and listed my reasons why I think the GFX 100 is not the best tool for those applications. That's it. Feel free to refute my arguments, or ignore them, whatever suits you best. I am sure the Fuji GFX 100's sales will be very successful, as I said it's a technological marvel. I will, however, keep thinking that there are better tools for most of the photographic applications I listed, if that's ok by you.

I also stand by my general remark about the way technology purchases work nowadays, i.e. not following logical / purpose-oriented thinking, and again feel free to refute that or ignore it, as you wish. However, I think it's hard to ignore that we live in a marketing-oriented society, and that it's very, very hard to argue i.e. that people owning an iPhone 7 needed to upgrade to an iPhone 8 because of those extra features the 8 had, versus being convinced by the power of marketing / ads - and that is just to make one example.

Again, I am sorry if I hit a nerve - of course, not everyone need to be purpose-oriented when purchasing gear, so enjoy your gear of choice and don't mind my remarks.

Best regards,

Vieri

As I understand from the past you have a commercial/sponser relationship with Leica. I think the nerve is right there.
Your statement were just a bit to bold to pass by without people reacting to it.

I really wouldn't know why I shouldn't prefer the new fuji above a Leica S. The difference in weight is only 140 grams and the lenses are probably a lot lighter.
It is even lighter then my Pentax 645Z!
If I think purpose-oriented as you call it I would say this is the perfect, fantastic outdoor walk about medium format camera with 100 stabelised mpixels, (For half the price of a Leica S)
Would be perfect for what I do namely walk about in urban or other man-made areas and shoot pictures with the possibility to make big prints.
I would be perfectly happy with that camera together with the 23mm and the 32-64 zoom.
I agree with you that the new Hasselblad is very temptying as well. In deed much lighter.

 

[algrove]

FWIW, my 50R body with battery and 2 SD cards weighs the same as my Leica M10 with battery and one SD card. Sure lenses are larger but that's to be expected with a MF camera.

Sure it's larger than an M Leica, its MF, but I have worked with it outdoors for 5-6 hours and never got tired since the weight of my Leica gear helped getting my muscles in shape before getting the 50R.

 

[pegelli]

You're missing my point Vieri, I'm not saying the GFX 100 is "the best", I'm not buying your argument that there are no use cases where the GFX is the best balance of requirements.

1) The same argument can go the other way;

Exactly my point, for some the GFX 100 is the perfect balence between MP and weight. For some others it's a Hasselblad or a full frame camera.

2) I am not talking about weight/convenience, I am talking about the right lenses for the job. Most professional architectural photographers use tech cameras with digital backs, or FF cameras with T/S lenses.

And I'm saying that when weight/convenience is an issue there's sufficient options to make the GFX 100 the best possible solution. For some others it's a DB and technical camera. There's no "one size is best for all"

3) I am not saying it cannot be done, just that there are better tools for the job, which your argument kinda proves: there might be plenty of cases where the GFX is perfect, as there are plenty where it's not;

Exactly my point

I am not undervaluing anything, I just made my personal list of points why I personally wouldn't buy the GFX 100.

I'm not argueing why you don't want to use a GFX 100, that's a personal choice only you can make.

What I'm reacting to is this statement:

The Fuji GFX 100 is technologically speaking a marvel, but it feels more like an exercise than a camera with a clear photographic purpose to me. The X1D II is, as it was the X1D, the best camera for landscape photography IMHO, and while far from being universal (no MF is, yet) is very good at other kind of shooting as well. I might have overlooked something, but I simply cannot see the point of the GFX 100 in practical, real photographical use against the existing alternatives, either FF or MF.

All I am saying is that when you open your mind there are plenty situations imaginable where the GFX 100 is the best tool for the job, just like the current Hasselblad X1D and X1Dmk2 are the the best choice for you (and the Leica's were for you in the past). So saying the camera "has no photographic purpose" is in my mind not valid (and unnecessarily derogatory), it just depends on your personal preferences. As you say it's just gear, so there is no need to talk the GFX 100 down just because it's not the ideal tool for you (at the moment).

 

[gerald.d]

Gerald,

take it easy -

You’re projecting. And I didn’t read a word of the post after that.

How about we leave it there, and get this back on topic and discuss the ‘blads, rather than pass judgement on other people’s perfectly rational, sensible, and intellectually valid reasons for choosing to purchase the Fuji instead.

X1D II - it’s what the X1D should have been at launch. Will sell very well into certain segments, and I’m pretty sure those segments are large enough to make it a commercial success.

Makes a lot of sense.

What doesn’t make any sense whatsoever is the announcement of the CFV II 50C and 907X.

No pricing.
No release date.

What’s the competition for this? Don’t get me wrong - I totally understand that it is a very attractive and compelling offer.

But given we don’t know how much it will cost, nor when it will come out, if someone did have $6-$10k that they were considering dropping on a camera system in the next couple of months, what would they *not* buy, waiting to see whether the CFV II 50C/907X combo made a more compelling offer for them?

Certainly not anything from Phase One.
And certainly not anything from Fuji.

Can you think of any camera on the market - or perhaps one soon to be released - that a potential customer would hold fire on pulling the trigger for, whilst they wait to find out more details about the CFV II 50C/907X?

 

[faberryman]

Can you think of any camera on the market - or perhaps one soon to be released - that a potential customer would hold fire on pulling the trigger for, whilst they wait to find out more details about the CFV II 50C/907X?

Who is the target customer for the CFV II 50c/907x? Someone who wants to use their old 500c and lenses as a 50MP 645 digital camera? On another forum, someone suggest the cost of the CVF ii 50c was going to be $15,000. Does that really make sense for anyone, even at half that?

 

[gerald.d]

Who is the target customer for the CFV II 50c/907x? Someone who wants to use their old 500c and lenses as a 50MP 645 digital camera? On another forum, someone suggest the cost of the CVF ii 50c was going to be $15,000. Does that really make sense for anyone, even at half that?

Answering the question with a completely different question doesn’t really help much, but I’m sure others will be happy to pick up the diversion.

Re the pricing, no. It won’t be $15k. The back is a cut-down X1D II. It will cost less than the X1D II, unless Hasselblad are intent on committing commercial suicide.

I have a theory as to why they have pre-announced it so far in advance, and that’s that it is an attempt to take the wind out of an impending Fuji digital back.

But time will tell.

 

[tcdeveau]

Who is the target customer for the CFV II 50c/907x? Someone who wants to use their old 500c and lenses as a 50MP 645 digital camera? On another forum, someone suggest the cost of the CVF ii 50c was going to be $15,000. Does that really make sense for anyone, even at half that?

I'm interested in the CFVII 50c/907x because it would be a system I could use both my XCD lenses and tech cam gear with, in a small compact package. This would be great for travel, especially if it tethers to the iPad Pro with Phocus Mobile 2 and I could edit raws on the iPad Pro. There are probably only a handful of potential customers like me though.

I wonder if they didn't release price or availability yet because they want to gauge potential interest first. Shrug.

My interest is totally dependent on price. I'd only consider picking one up if they keep the price of the body+back in the ballpark of the X1DII 50c. The existing 50mp sensor is great and produces great images, but a new camera with that sensor in 2019/2020 is not worth much more to me than what they are asking for the X1DII 50c.

 

[gerald.d]

I'm interested in the CFVII 50c/907x because it would be a system I could use both my XCD lenses and tech cam gear with, in a small compact package. This would be great for travel, especially if it tethers to the iPad Pro with Phocus Mobile 2 and I could edit raws on the iPad Pro. There are probably only a handful of potential customers like me though.

I wonder if they didn't release price or availability yet because they want to gauge potential interest first. Shrug.

My interest is totally dependent on price. I'd only consider picking one up if they keep the price of the body+back in the ballpark of the X1DII 50c. The existing 50mp sensor is great and produces great images, but a new camera with that sensor in 2019/2020 is not worth much more to me than what they are asking for the X1DII 50c.

Forgive me because I’m not up to date on the possibilities, but are there not solutions available right now for mounting an X1D (I or II) to a tech cam?

It would be interesting to know what additional options would open up for a CFVII owner lens-wise due to its shorter focal flange distance.

 

[PeterA]

Hello Darr,

I posted this on a different forum, but I think it applies here as well.

The new X1D mark II is hardly technically inferior to any of the 50 MP Fujis, in a smaller, lighter and better looking package with a better UI - in fact, to me is better than both of them, unless you definitely need a focal plane shutter of course. About the Fuji GFX 100, I might be wrong, but IMHO the Fuji GFX 100 is a great technological achievement without a clear target user, save of course the wealthy amateur that wants the latest and best no matter what. Let's see possible professional uses for the GFX 100:

Studio (people). That's probably the best use for it, but then why do you need such a huge camera, or IBIS, or weather sealing in a studio? And, it has a relatively slow flash sync, not a must in the studio but since there are leaf shutter systems out there, probably if you do people going into one of those would be a better choice.
Studio (product). Same as the above, and, no product-shooting-specific lenses such as T/S, limited choice of macro, and so on.
People outside the studio. Again, see studio (people) above, but in this case leaf-shutter systems would definitely much better suited to the task.
Sport. Despite all the advancing in tech, I think that hardly anyone would choose MF as their weapon of choice for sport shooting. No long enough lenses, not fast enough, too many MP to move around, and so on. IMHO, FF is still the king for sport shooting.
Landscape. While it's potentially great to have 100 MP and weather sealing, the 1.2 KG package (camera body alone) makes it a no go for me, and I would never choose it for my work. Now, a 100 MP X2D or a GFX 50R/S-form-factor-camera with a 100 MP sensor would be a total different proposition of course
Macro / flowers. Again, limited macro lens choice and no T/S options would make FF the better choice for this.
Nature / bird / animals. IBIS is useful, but the lack of long enough lenses would limit this use severely. And again, if you have to hike / walk long distances, 1.2 kg for the camera body alone would make this pretty uncomfortable vs, say, FF.
Street. Well, I don't think anyone would consider the GFX 100 for this.
Reportage. I don't think anyone would consider the GFX 100 for this either.

So, if one thinks purpose-oriented, setting GAS aside and forgetting the impulse to have the new and best tech available, I don't actually think that there is any kind of shooting for which the GFX is the best choice out there. The Fuji GFX 100 is technologically speaking a marvel, but it feels more like an exercise than a camera with a clear photographic purpose to me. The X1D II is, as it was the X1D, the best camera for landscape photography IMHO, and while far from being universal (no MF is, yet) is very good at other kind of shooting as well. I might have overlooked something, but I simply cannot see the point of the GFX 100 in practical, real photographical use against the existing alternatives, either FF or MF.

As always, just my .02. Best regards,

Vieri

That is a great list of subjects/genres you've placed there Vieri! I'm sure Fuji is trembling in its boots now knowing that their flagship camera is useless to anyone. :ROTFL:

 

[vieri]

As I understand from the past you have a commercial/sponser relationship with Leica. I think the nerve is right there.
Your statement were just a bit to bold to pass by without people reacting to it.

I really wouldn't know why I shouldn't prefer the new fuji above a Leica S. The difference in weight is only 140 grams and the lenses are probably a lot lighter.
It is even lighter then my Pentax 645Z!
If I think purpose-oriented as you call it I would say this is the perfect, fantastic outdoor walk about medium format camera with 100 stabelised mpixels, (For half the price of a Leica S)
Would be perfect for what I do namely walk about in urban or other man-made areas and shoot pictures with the possibility to make big prints.
I would be perfectly happy with that camera together with the 23mm and the 32-64 zoom.
I agree with you that the new Hasselblad is very temptying as well. In deed much lighter.

Michiel, I am sorry but you are pretty off the mark here.

1. I ended my relationship with Leica in December 2018: https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2019/01/a-new-chapter-ahead-farewell-leica.html
2. I never talked about the Leica S in my post above
3. Even when I was an Ambassador, I used the SL for my work. I tried the S but the long exposure limitation to one minute made it a non-starter for me and my work.

Best regards,

Vieri