Hasselblad Teaser and Upcoming Announcement

[vieri]

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.

...

I don't think so, but what this makes me think is that perhaps you have been missing my point, though. I never said that the Fuji isn't the best balance of requirements, what I said is actually the opposite: I said that the GFX 100 is not the absolute best at any of the genres I listed. It's a great camera, I said that and I'll say it again, but IMHO there are alternatives out there, in the MF camp or outside of it, that are better suited for any of the genres I listed.

Best regards,

Vieri

 

[clonardo]

Well, I had the chance to get hands-on with the X1D II at a Hasselblad event in NYC last night. It does feel much snappier than the original, and the UI responsiveness is greatly improved. Tethering was nice, though obviously would be nicer with Capture One support. After sleeping on it, I decided to pre-order from B&H today. I sold my H4D-60 and bought a really inexpensive XCD 90mm in anticipation of this release (and will aim to pick up the XCD 135mm next), and while it's not what I was hoping for, I think that it's a much more usable camera than the original X1D was.

 

[tcdeveau]

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.

Hi Gerald,
Yes there are.

Alpa has an HXD adapter (Dan uses it with his 12+), but its use is somewhat limited. The X1D is not compatible with my STC and SB17 lenses because of the grip of the X1D and infinity focus is not possible with SB17 lenses. I'm assuming this would be the case as well with the X1DII.

The X1DI can also be used on the Cambo Actus.

For my purposes, I've decided a traditional digital back fits my needs and current gear stable better than trying to adapt the X1D.
-Todd

 

[faberryman]

I am not sure why people are comparing the X1D II to the GFX100. The X1D II is just an update of the original X1D. The proper comparison is still with the GFX50S and GFX50R. It's nice to have a choice. Obviously, if you need 100MP, the X1D II is not in the race. Apples and oranges.

 

[jng]

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.

The flange distances of the X1D and GFX limit the range of lenses that can be used. Focal lengths generally must be 60mm or longer, with restricted movements on lenses < 70mm. For example, see:

http://cambousa.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Cambo-Actus-lens-compatibility-table-2018-V4.pdf

In addition to a Cambo I also own an X1D, which I use mainly for travel and snapping people (and cats). I think the new CFV/907x combination would make a nice addition to the kit! It's very compact and provides full interoperability between the more automated and compact X series platform and the manual tech cam platform, either as the sole MFDB or as a backup back for the latter. And yes, one could also use the CFV II on the old V system bodies but attaining precise focus with the optical viewfinder is a challenge (I speak from my own experience, YMMV of course). In cases where using the electronic shutter isn't limiting (presumably this will be a feature of the new CFV II), it would make more sense to use the V system lenses on the X body(ies) via the XV adapter.

John

 

[danlindberg]

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.

Yes, I have the adapter to mount the X1D on an Alpa body. However, for movements you need SB34 lenses which of course is limiting. Shooting straight you can use SB17 lenses. But with the CFV I am guessing and hoping that the whole Alpa system opens up and you can reach infinity and use movements with any Alpa lens.
So, this announcement is exciting in my case.

 

[gerald.d]

Yes, I have the adapter to mount the X1D on an Alpa body. However, for movements you need SB34 lenses which of course is limiting. Shooting straight you can use SB17 lenses. But with the CFV I am guessing and hoping that the whole Alpa system opens up and you can reach infinity and use movements with any Alpa lens.
So, this announcement is exciting in my case.

Thanks Dan - and also to John and Todd for their replies.

What benefits would the CFV II bring to the table (or more accurately, tripod) that an existing MFDB wouldn’t for a tech cam user?

There is an aside here in that I don’t think there has been a proper discussion yet regarding the impact the GFX100 announcement has had on second hand MFDB values. Obviously this thread is not the place for that discussion, but it is something that perhaps should be addressed at some point, because it absolutely does has a significant impact on the perceived “value” of whatever the CFV II price-point turns out to be.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

 

[tcdeveau]

Thanks Dan - and also to John and Todd for their replies.

What benefits would the CFV II bring to the table (or more accurately, tripod) that an existing MFDB wouldn’t for a tech cam user?

There is an aside here in that I don’t think there has been a proper discussion yet regarding the impact the GFX100 announcement has had on second hand MFDB values. Obviously this thread is not the place for that discussion, but it is something that perhaps should be addressed at some point, because it absolutely does has a significant impact on the perceived “value” of whatever the CFV II price-point turns out to be.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

For me, the benefits of the CFVII compared to an existing MFDB is the ability to use XCD lenses with the 907 body. In one bag, I could have the XCD 21/35-75/90 and STC/40/70 that I could use with the CFVII/907.

Other than that, besides articulating screen, there doesn't appear to be anything the CFVII could do that an existing MFDB couldn't do for my needs.

I bought into the tech cam system knowing that I'd buy a back *at some point*, but the right back for the right price, my financials, and time to shoot have not aligned yet.

 

[danlindberg]

Gerald, I don't think it brings better tech compared to existing backs out there and even if we are still in the dark concerning price, we all believe (and hope) that this will be the most reasonably priced digital back that can double up as a tech cam 'motor' and also use it as a compact point and shoot with modern and excellent XCD lenses! This alone makes it interesting.

 

[dougpeterson]

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.

Why not a certified pre-owned Phase One IQ1 50mp + 500 series or SWC? They share the same 2014 era sensor, and the P1 works in vertical orientation (or horizontal) and has raws compatible with Capture One. I suspect they'll end up at around the same price.

Obviously hard to compare pros/cons and ROI with a camera that isn't released yet. One can assume there would be valid arguments in favor of either that would at least put them in the "considering" range either direction.

 

[jng]

Thanks Dan - and also to John and Todd for their replies.

What benefits would the CFV II bring to the table (or more accurately, tripod) that an existing MFDB wouldn’t for a tech cam user?

There is an aside here in that I don’t think there has been a proper discussion yet regarding the impact the GFX100 announcement has had on second hand MFDB values. Obviously this thread is not the place for that discussion, but it is something that perhaps should be addressed at some point, because it absolutely does has a significant impact on the perceived “value” of whatever the CFV II price-point turns out to be.

Kind regards,

Gerald.

Gerald,

Strictly for tech cam use, advantages over, say, an IQ150, would include the (presumed) electronic shutter, the ability to use without shooting dark frames and (depending on one's taste) a more modern user interface. And with due respect to the Disto-carrying Alpa and Arca-Swiss users out there (you know who you are), pretty much any CMOS back would be easier to use in the field than the older CCD backs.

I personally prefer the larger 40 x 54mm format of my IQ3100, but the possibility of a 33 x 44mm sensor that can be used across multiple platforms for me is a big attraction, one that may prove to be irresistable if/when Hasselblad deploys the current generation 100 Mp BSI sensor in the CFV. For now I will sit tight with my X1D.

John

 

[dougpeterson]

Strictly for tech cam use, advantages over, say, an IQ150, would include... the ability to use without shooting dark frames

The IQ150 can shoot without dark frames when mounted on a tech camera. Just turn on aerial mode. I would suggest against it most of the time, since dark frames are an incredibly powerful way to keep noise very low in long exposures, but obviously in some cases it will be a reasonable compromise to make. The best option is what P1 did with the IQ4; the quality of dark frames, without the hassle of making them in the field.

The other advantages you list all seem reasonable assumptions. Hard to know for sure until it ships. But anyway, that is for another thread when the time comes.

 

[gerald.d]

Gerald,

Strictly for tech cam use, advantages over, say, an IQ150, would include the (presumed) electronic shutter, the ability to use without shooting dark frames and (depending on one's taste) a more modern user interface. And with due respect to the Disto-carrying Alpa and Arca-Swiss users out there (you know who you are), pretty much any CMOS back would be easier to use in the field than the older CCD backs.

I personally prefer the larger 40 x 54mm format of my IQ3100, but the possibility of a 33 x 44mm sensor that can be used across multiple platforms for me is a big attraction, one that may prove to be irresistable if/when Hasselblad deploys the current generation 100 Mp BSI sensor in the CFV. For now I will sit tight with my X1D.

John

Hi John -

I’m not sure a second hand 150 is a realistic comparison price wise.

How about an IQ3 50?

As I alluded to earlier, I’m fairly confident that following the official announcement of the GFX100, a used IQ3 100 will be difficult to sell for five figures USD. What price the 50 in this new market?

Kind regards,


Gerald.

 

[pegelli]

I don't think so, but what this makes me think is that perhaps you have been missing my point, though. I never said that the Fuji isn't the best balance of requirements, what I said is actually the opposite: I said that the GFX 100 is not the absolute best at any of the genres I listed. It's a great camera, I said that and I'll say it again, but IMHO there are alternatives out there, in the MF camp or outside of it, that are better suited for any of the genres I listed.

Best regards,

Vieri

You're playing with words Vieri, you originally said it was a camera designed without a purpose. Now you say something else (which I still don't agree with)

But maybe to be more specific at showing your argument is not correct: Which sub 10 k€ camera is better at landscapes if you need (want/desire) 100 MP, if the GFX 100 is not the absolute best which camera is it?

 

[danlindberg]

Why not a certified pre-owned Phase One IQ1 50mp + 500 series or SWC? They share the same 2014 era sensor, and the P1 works in vertical orientation (or horizontal) and has raws compatible with Capture One. I suspect they'll end up at around the same price.

Obviously hard to compare pros/cons and ROI with a camera that isn't released yet. One can assume there would be valid arguments in favor of either that would at least put them in the "considering" range either direction.

Doug, I wouldn't mind an IQ 1 50 tech wise, but in my case I already have three stellar XCD lenses so the CFV would naturally be much more interesting even if the price was identical.

 

[jng]

The IQ150 can shoot without dark frames when mounted on a tech camera. Just turn on aerial mode. I would suggest against it most of the time, since dark frames are an incredibly powerful way to keep noise very low in long exposures, but obviously in some cases it will be a reasonable compromise to make. The best option is what P1 did with the IQ4; the quality of dark frames, without the hassle of making them in the field.

The other advantages you list all seem reasonable assumptions. Hard to know for sure until it ships. But anyway, that is for another thread when the time comes.

Doug - good point. However as you note, noise can be an issue when shooting long exposures w/out dark frames in the pre-IQ4 Phase backs. Hasselblad (and later P1 in the IQ4) incorporated dark frames in each X1D chip's ROM, which I'm guessing for LE gives better results than shooting an IQ150 in aerial mode. From my experience with the X1D I can say that it works quite well and is a welcome feature.

I didn't think that taking dark frames in the field was such a big deal until I started hearing my IQ4-endowed buddies laughing at me as they were folding up their tripods on their way to the next location while I was left waiting around for the dark frame to finish. :banghead:

Hi John -

I’m not sure a second hand 150 is a realistic comparison price wise.

How about an IQ3 50?

As I alluded to earlier, I’m fairly confident that following the official announcement of the GFX100, a used IQ3 100 will be difficult to sell for five figures USD. What price the 50 in this new market?

Gerald - TBH, I haven't kept up on what the various older generation IQ backs will fetch on the used market, either through the dealer network or via private party sales. For many if not most of us, value is an important factor so the CFV II's cost may either increase or temper enthusiasm once this is formally announced. Whether the price has a tangible effect on the used market for other MFDBs is anyone's guess. In the meantime, it feels like Dante has my number on speed dial.

All that said, until prices are announced it's not at all clear to me that the new CFV II 50c represents the best value strictly as a 30 x 44 CMOS MFDB. However that value proposition will change if/when there's a CFV II 100c as it would fill a currently unfilled niche in the market. In this regard Hasselblad's return to a modular platform spanning the X, V and tech cam formats may represent a marketing strategy that keeps them in business for a while if (and big if) they can execute.

John

 

[dougpeterson]

Doug, I wouldn't mind an IQ 1 50 tech wise, but in my case I already have three stellar XCD lenses so the CFV would naturally be much more interesting even if the price was identical.

Yes, that sounds very reasonable. Glad for you that this option is now available to you (or will be once it ships); sounds like a great fit for you.

We truly are spoiled with good options nowadays!

 

[onasj]

The IQ4 has both an electronic shutter and the option of switching off the requirement for taking dark frames. The real advantage of the IQ4 over any other currently available digital back for tech cam use (besides the 50-200% higher resolution, at least 1 stop of better signal:noise at above-base ISO values, and up to 1 stop of dynamic range, depending on which back you are comparing with) is there's virtually no color shift, even at substantial shift or tilt settings.

Gerald,

Strictly for tech cam use, advantages over, say, an IQ150, would include the (presumed) electronic shutter, the ability to use without shooting dark frames and (depending on one's taste) a more modern user interface. And with due respect to the Disto-carrying Alpa and Arca-Swiss users out there (you know who you are), pretty much any CMOS back would be easier to use in the field than the older CCD backs.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

.... In the meantime, it feels like Dante has my number on speed dial.

John

Of course! Welcome to the 7th level of purgatory.

Better go ahead and get your name on the wait-list. It is better to have, than have-not.

You can always ask for forgiveness later.

Dante

 

[vieri]

You're playing with words Vieri, you originally said it was a camera designed without a purpose. Now you say something else (which I still don't agree with)

But maybe to be more specific at showing your argument is not correct: Which sub 10 k€ camera is better at landscapes if you need (want/desire) 100 MP, if the GFX 100 is not the absolute best which camera is it?

No, sorry, you are not only playing with words but twisting my words too. My post is there for all to read.

About your question, you can't be serious - that's a loaded question if I have ever seen one, you forgot to add "with IBIS" to make it totally loaded. You must think very little of me if you thought I couldn't see through that And with this, I am done.

Best regards,

Vieri