p.2 #3 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
I guess I don't really get it that much. The advantage of this over something like the A7R II is...what, exactly? Sure, you'll get a bit cleaner base ISO images...a bit wider dynamic range probably...and....that's it? The A7R II already gets you nearly the same resolution, the dynamic range is fantastic and low ISO noise is already very low. With the lenses as slow as they are, you don't gain anything at higher ISOs at all, and you don't gain any shallower depth of field. Heck, the Fuji X system with a 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 will show significantly shallower DOF than these lenses here.
So, $9K for slightly better ISO 100 image quality? What am I missing here? If this were a full 645 sized sensor, or even more exciting, a 6x7, I could understand the excitement, but is there even any guarantee that the slightly larger size will outperform Sony's awesome full frame sensor?
p.2 #4 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
I've been impressed with what I've seen from the 645Z. Of course I've been plenty impressed by what I've seen from the A7R2 here as well.
I think, assuming that adapters are forthcoming, the ability for people to use their existing / favorite MF glass and get more out of it, will be a selling point.
p.2 #5 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
I guess I don't really get it that much. The advantage of this over something like the A7R II is...what, exactly? Sure, you'll get a bit cleaner base ISO images...a bit wider dynamic range probably...and....that's it? The A7R II already gets you nearly the same resolution, the dynamic range is fantastic and low ISO noise is already very low. With the lenses as slow as they are, you don't gain anything at higher ISOs at all, and you don't gain any shallower depth of field. Heck, the Fuji X system with a 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 will show significantly shallower DOF than these lenses here.
So, $9K for slightly better ISO 100 image quality? What am I missing here? If this were a full 645 sized sensor, or even more exciting, a 6x7, I could understand the excitement, but is there even any guarantee that the slightly larger size will outperform Sony's awesome full frame sensor?
You get a different look from the larger sensor and photosites. It's not just in terms of technical measures we like to look at like noise, DR, and DOF*.
*In my experience as a professional photographer and earlier as an assistant to commercial photographers, shallow DOF is almost universally a quality chased by amateurs and enthusiasts. These lenses are going to be shot mostly stopped down for work, often quite a bit. So I'd take DOF right off the table as a factor.
I agree with you Jordan, insofar as the diminishing returns don't hit my own personal value curve (and this is work for me). But, this is a cheap system when you're looking at it from a 50-100K gear budget/system. And it's just a start. I'd expect a double-resolution version in the not too distant future.
p.2 #7 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
I guess my thing is, that 'different look' I think is very nebulous. With only a .8x difference, it's not that much larger. Pixel size, I don't buy either: the photo sites are smaller than on my A7 II. The different look, I'd bet is almost all down to confirmation bias. I'm sure, if examining the shots at 100%, you might be able to see a slim difference in some shots, but the difference in overall look? My guess is it's actually marginal at best.
This would be a lot more exciting if it used something like the PhaseOne 100MP sensor, which is 53.7mm x 40.4mm. That's the same increase over the 44x33mm sensor as the 44x33mm sensor is over FF, and is a more full featured jump. Plus, with the increase in resolution, you see even greater returns beyond the larger sensor size.
p.2 #9 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
I guess my thing is, that 'different look' I think is very nebulous. With only a .8x difference, it's not that much larger. Pixel size, I don't buy either: the photo sites are smaller than on my A7 II. The different look, I'd bet is almost all down to confirmation bias. I'm sure, if examining the shots at 100%, you might be able to see a slim difference in some shots, but the difference in overall look? My guess is it's actually marginal at best.
The main difference will be the tonal gradations and the sharp to blur transitions. The Leica S has a similar 0.8x factor and the advantage is undeniable when you view a few captures.
p.2 #10 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Aren't sharp to blur transitions a function of lens design, and not inherent to the format? Explain how a slight increase in sensor size using a slower lens translates to a differing sharp to blur transition. The Leica lenses might give you a different look than what you get on the Sony/Zeiss lenses, but as a result of the format? Nah.
I also disagree that the difference in tonal gradation is undeniable...it's exceptionally subtle, and only really visible under very high magnification and careful pixel peeping. This is supposed to be the same sensor that's in the Pentax 645Z, right? I've looked at head to head comparisons with the A7R II and the 645Z, and there is a very slight advantage to the 645Z, but it's only noticeable if you're looking at 100% and really peeping for it. Hanging a print on the wall, I bet if 20 images from great photographers were hung on the wall at 36" wide, with 10 from the A7R II and 10 from the 645Z, of different subjects, I'd place money that if a group of people were asked to guess which camera shot which image, the results would be no better than random chance. Heck, most people can't see much difference between prints from my m4/3 cameras and my A7II, and there's a huge difference in tonal gradation between those formats. (I have prints from m4/3, Fuji, Sony, etc, all over my house and I've actually asked people to try to identify those from the best cameras, and they fail miserably.)
There is a big difference when looking at the Phase One 100MP X cameras....but I don't see a big difference at all with the 645Z.
p.2 #11 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
I guess I don't really get it that much. The advantage of this over something like the A7R II is...what, exactly? Sure, you'll get a bit cleaner base ISO images...a bit wider dynamic range probably...and....that's it? The A7R II already gets you nearly the same resolution, the dynamic range is fantastic and low ISO noise is already very low. With the lenses as slow as they are, you don't gain anything at higher ISOs at all, and you don't gain any shallower depth of field. Heck, the Fuji X system with a 23mm f/1.4 and 56mm f/1.2 will show significantly shallower DOF than these lenses here.
So, $9K for slightly better ISO 100 image quality? What am I missing here? If this were a full 645 sized sensor, or even more exciting, a 6x7, I could understand the excitement, but is there even any guarantee that the slightly larger size will outperform Sony's awesome full frame sensor?
p.2 #12 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
It will be interesting if it is the A9 or the A7rIII FF camera that come out with the rumored 70 to 80 MP sensor and is in fact released later this year and/or quite possibly shown at Photokina and PhotoPlus.
p.2 #13 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Aren't sharp to blur transitions a function of lens design, and not inherent to the format? Explain how a slight increase in sensor size using a slower lens translates to a differing sharp to blur transition. The Leica lenses might give you a different look than what you get on the Sony/Zeiss lenses, but as a result of the format? Nah.
I also disagree that the difference in tonal gradation is undeniable...it's exceptionally subtle, and only really visible under very high magnification and careful pixel peeping. This is supposed to be the same sensor that's in the Pentax 645Z, right? I've looked at head to head comparisons with the A7R II and the 645Z, and there is a very slight advantage to the 645Z, but it's only noticeable if you're looking at 100% and really peeping for it. Hanging a print on the wall, I bet if 20 images from great photographers were hung on the wall at 36" wide, with 10 from the A7R II and 10 from the 645Z, of different subjects, I'd place money that if a group of people were asked to guess which camera shot which image, the results would be no better than random chance. Heck, most people can't see much difference between prints from my m4/3 cameras and my A7II, and there's a huge difference in tonal gradation between those formats. (I have prints from m4/3, Fuji, Sony, etc, all over my house and I've actually asked people to try to identify those from the best cameras, and they fail miserably.)
There is a big difference when looking at the Phase One 100MP X cameras....but I don't see a big difference at all with the 645Z....Show more →
Sure-- that's why I said diminishing returns.
It seems obvious, but it's funny that we all think we're at the absolute best spot on the value for quality curve.
The 8 x 10 shooter thinks he's at the perfect spot.
The 4 x 5 shooter...
The MF shooter...
The crop-MF shooter...
Me, with my A7rII think I've got the perfect spot.
The Fuji APS-C shooter...
The m4/3 shooter...
The 1" sensor shooter...
The iPhone shooter...
And yet, invariably, even if all those formats were being shot on film with the same general chemistry and physical characteristics-- the images would have differences because of the format, the lens design (itself influenced by the format), exposure considerations, etc.
But look: Those folks who are shooting MF backs for work really aren't doing it because of placebo effect. Yes, it's a huge increase in cost for diminishing returns. Yes, a great photographer with m4/3 and a great photographer with MF can both produced beautiful prints. But there are differences...
p.2 #14 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
edwardkaraa wrote:
The main difference will be the tonal gradations and the sharp to blur transitions. The Leica S has a similar 0.8x factor and the advantage is undeniable when you view a few captures.
Cleaner base ISO, higher bit color depth and shallower DOF are the main advantages imo but lenses play a crucial role in the overall look and rendering of an image.
p.2 #15 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Fred Miranda wrote:
Cleaner base ISO, higher bit color depth and shallower DOF are the main advantages imo but lenses play a crucial role in the overall look and rendering of an image.
No disagreement. Lens design does indeed play a crucial role.
p.2 #16 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Fred Miranda wrote:
Cleaner base ISO, higher bit output and shallower DOF are the main advantages imo but lenses play a crucial role in the overall look and rendering of an image.
Just depends on why you are shooting what you are shooting. In commercial work, having smooth color and tonal gradations for products, skin and skies are imperative.
p.2 #18 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
I'm not denying the images will be better...but it's a giant increase in cost, with a very limited set of circumstances where improvement is visible. I'm sure it'll be a great system for those who truly need every last drop of image quality, but diminishing returns is right.
p.2 #19 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
justruss wrote:
Another one is diffraction when shooting stopped down...
Diffraction is something that truly is equalized between formats. To get equivalent depth of field, you need to stop down more. Sure, you can shoot at f/16 on this and get the same level of diffraction as you get at f/13 on FF...but you need f/16 to get the same depth of field as f/13 on FF, so it's a wash.
p.2 #20 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Jman13 wrote:
Diffraction is something that truly is equalized between formats. To get equivalent depth of field, you need to stop down more. Sure, you can shoot at f/16 on this and get the same level of diffraction as you get at f/13 on FF...but you need f/16 to get the same depth of field as f/13 on FF, so it's a wash.
The reason it isn't a wash is that you have to stop down to get to where a lens performs best.
