p.26 #1 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
You want long or really long stay with your 35 gear. MF is not about that to begin with.
And here I think we are roughly on the same page.
Each format has its particular attractions and advantages, and the important thing is to understand them and how they will work for specific types of photography. (My solution is to use more than one format, something that many photographers have done for decades. I still think that there could be a mini MF system in my future, too.)
p.26 #2 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
This is starting to go off topic... I shot it with canon glass, 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS, 16-35/4 IS, etc. It had nothing to do with lens choice, i just found the files to *feel* plasticky. The color seemed to either be way too subtle or blowing the channels. I know plenty of ppl enjoy the sony products and i think thats great.
My original point was that a digital back released in 2007 still has the image quality to compare against "modern cameras" . Im sure this modern blad will be even better and at a much cheaper price than the P45+ was released at.
Of course all the medium format digital caveats apply. Its not for everyone. Just like a sony body isn't for everyone
Cheers
enjoythemusic wrote:
With which lens? With the Batis 25 I find the colors and subtle shading to be to my liking over some of the other prime/non-prime native lenses.
p.26 #3 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Phillip Reeve wrote:
hmm if you look at the horizontal AoV you don't take into account the different ratio of the sensor. If you cropped the X1D image to 2:3 I would agree but normally the diagonal is used to calculate the crop factor:
(24^2+36^2)^0.5 = 43.27 (Diagonal of FF sensor)
(32.8^2+43.8^2)^0.5 = 54.7 (Diagonal of X1D sensor)
54.7/43.27= 1.26 (Crop factor)
I think it makes more sense to use horizontal AOV to compare formats with different aspect ratios, than diagonal AOV. For example, if you say that a 50mm lens on FF is equivalent to a 32mm on 6x6 based on horizontal AOV, then you would have the same horizontal framing on both cameras. OTOH, if you say the 50mm lens on FF is equivalent to 27mm on 6x6 based on diagonal AOV, the vertical and horizontal framing are different on the two cameras.
I consistently use horizontal AOV, in horizontal (landscape) mode, because I think it's much more useful than using diagonal AOV. Just because the diagonal AOV is "normally" used to compare different formats doesn't mean that it's good practice.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
...So a 300m on the X1D is equivalent to a 238mm on FF.
p.26 #4 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
jcolwell wrote:
I consistently use horizontal AOV, in horizontal (landscape) mode, because I think it's much more useful than using diagonal AOV. Just because the diagonal AOV is "normally" used to compare different formats doesn't mean that it's good practice.
I agree that diagonal AOV is the least useful for comaprison, becuase with different aspect ratios it is very unlikely that we actually frame the photos with the same diagonal. Sometimes I find vertical AOV more useful than horizontal, especially when I want to find reasons to go MF
p.26 #5 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Something else to consider aside from horizontal or diagonal AOV calculations is lens rendering.
Let's use diagonal AOV for this example: The new XCD 45/3.5 should be full frame equivalent to 35/2.8 but won't render like a 35mm...
The same goes for wides. The upcoming XCD 30mm will render like a 30mm regardless of AOV equivalency. That means, if you really like how a 24mm image renders, you many not be happy with the MF 30mm lens even though you get similar DAOV.
p.26 #6 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
jcolwell wrote:
I think it makes more sense to use horizontal AOV to compare formats with different aspect ratios, than diagonal AOV. For example, if you say that a 50mm lens on FF is equivalent to a 32mm on 6x6 based on horizontal AOV, then you would have the same horizontal framing on both cameras. OTOH, if you say the 50mm lens on FF is equivalent to 27mm on 6x6 based on diagonal AOV, the vertical and horizontal framing are different on the two cameras.
So why the horizontal AoV and not the vertical AoV? Your 50mm on 6x6 would be equivalent to a 21mm on FF then . Using the diagonal both the horizontal and vertical AoV are factored in.
I think in the end it comes down to which ratio and orientation one prefers.
p.26 #7 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
The sequence of posts above on this page actually illustrate that no single comparison works perfectly. I really think that each photographer needs to consider how he/she uses or would use the two cases being compared — the best evaluation comes, I think, from that personally defined perspective.
For example, if you are the sort who prefers to not crop and who would therefore shoot 3:2 with full frame and 4:3 with MF, you might feel that an area comparison makes the most sense. If you prefer either 3:2 or 4:3 you probably are most interested in a comparison that considers what either option provides when using your preferred format. If you are a photographer who orients to the vertical (or the horizontal) and lets the other dimension play out as it happens to...
... well, you get my drift.
Not trying to argue here. Just pointing out that lots of things are relative rather than absolute here, at least from the perspective of photographers trying to make comparisons and decisions.
p.26 #8 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
killersnowman wrote:
Ive used a sony a7r for over a year and much prefered the color and tones from the canon files over that camera, even though the sony has "a superior, modern sensor"
To each his own, its not even worth arguing about.
No intention to argue, I was commenting about DR, not about colors that is a matter of personnal taste.
Have you ever had the chance to compare the DR of your a7r files vs that of your P45?
p.26 #9 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
To me both 4:3 and 3:2 are a matter of taste. I been off and on with both . I tend to like 4:3 - a little more especially landscape but I like both for different reasons . One thing I never done was crop to match either way . Sort of just accepted over the years 35 is 3:2 and MF is 4:3. Now some folks will buy specifically for one or other . I'm kinda neutral on it. But understand a certain choice
p.26 #10 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Against a P45 which is a CCD sensor it does not have the DR of the newer CMOS
It's also a Kodak sensor which has less than a Dalsa sensor of like a IQ 140 or 160. Basically it's a older sensor that is not like the new CMOS. It's kinda of a bad comparison now since its kind if dated. Awesome sensor though in the P45 and many folks are still shooting it. I had a P25 22mpx, P30 31mpx both CCD and Kodak. Same family tree in Kodak including the P45. Than P40,IQ 140 same CCD Dalsa sensor than a IQ 160 same sensor bugger chip than the 40 series. I shot both the P45 and IQ 180 quite often as most of my workshops where supported by Phase One dealers. I got to use anything I wanted. But the Kidak series did not have quite the DR as the CCD Dalsa series which was almost a stop better in DR. The new CMOS Sony sensor has better DR than all previous CCD backs. One thing of note here the P45 plus back which has remained in many folks hands for years is it's the only one in CCD that can shoot a full hour in colder temps. I have done it myself and it's awesome. But this back still can be purchased used if you can find one. Lot of folks still have it in hand. It's a 39mpx slightly cropped sensor bernardl wrote:
No intention to argue, I was commenting about DR, not about colors that is a matter of personnal taste.
Have you ever had the chance to compare the DR of your a7r files vs that of your P45?
p.26 #11 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
As Guy pointed out in the above post, the P45+ is old, and apparently has a less than modern sensor. I believe the spec sheet for the P45+ states 12 stops of dynamic range and 16 bit colors. Ive found the actual dynamic range when converting a RAW in Capture one to be more than i would ever need and to be very natural in its rendering.
Here is one example of a single raw file converted in C1. Exposed for the highlights with NO grad filters on the camera. I know Jim has argued that the foreground is a bit too dark but i think it looks natural. There is data to pulled from it but i didn't
p.26 #12 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
Regardless of the DR there is just a ton of adjustment though and raw files can take quite a bit of adjustments. The Kodak sensors like this P45,P30 and P25 are all pretty big pixel pitches . Some call them big fat pixels and color is very rich coming off these sensors.
p.26 #13 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
killersnowman wrote:
This is starting to go off topic... I shot it with canon glass, 24-70/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS, 16-35/4 IS, etc. It had nothing to do with lens choice, i just found the files to *feel* plasticky. The color seemed to either be way too subtle or blowing the channels. I know plenty of ppl enjoy the sony products and i think thats great.
My original point was that a digital back released in 2007 still has the image quality to compare against "modern cameras" . Im sure this modern blad will be even better and at a much cheaper price than the P45+ was released at.
Of course all the medium format digital caveats apply. Its not for everyone. Just like a sony body isn't for everyone
p.26 #14 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
Regardless of the DR there is just a ton of adjustment though and raw files can take quite a bit of adjustments. The Kodak sensors like this P45,P30 and P25 are all pretty big pixel pitches . Some call them big fat pixels and color is very rich coming off these sensors.
The larger photo sites (assuming that the designs are current) provide several of the potential advantages of larger sensors — greater dynamic range, less noise (obviously related), greater system resolution at the same MP, potentially higher bit depth.
p.26 #15 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
My point here is this CMOS sensor that's in this Hassy is far diffrent from both Dalsa and Kodak CCD sensors. This chip has a great high ISO range, long exposure times and has a lot of horsepower to it. It's the first MF CMOS and Sony did a excellent job on it. Everyone is using it and taking advantage of its quality . Given I expect great lenses for the X1d this is going to be a really nice option for some to go this route. If it was big and heavy we would have blown this away at page 2. Given its what a lot of folks are after this sends a clear message to everyone else we would like to see more like it
p.26 #16 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
gdanmitchell wrote:
The larger photo sites (assuming that the designs are current) provide several of the potential advantages of larger sensors — greater dynamic range, less noise (obviously related), greater system resolution at the same MP, potentially higher bit depth.
Dan
Actually it's the opposite Dan as the pixels got smaller we got better DR and noise but the real shift was moving to CMOS and this chip is outstanding in noise and DR. I think nice to know the history of MF and where we came from because this is a big jump in technology now with this CMOS and I can't wait to see what Sony does next both in 35 and MF. Bottom line here though there is no need to worry about the quality of this sensor, it's a proven sensor. Folks are going to love it especially if the come from 35 today.
p.26 #17 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
What I'm really interested in today is its feature sets which the firmware is not set in stone yet so we have a opportunity here to make some valid ideas to Hassy that maybe in Sonys today , although our menu system is a mess we have some feature sets that are good. I'm sure they got 15 Sonys in there hands pouring over all that to see what it can do. But heck I like to be in that board room. Lol
p.26 #18 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
What I'm really interested in today is its feature sets which the firmware is not set in stone yet so we have a opportunity here to make some valid ideas to Hassy that maybe in Sonys today , although our menu system is a mess we have some feature sets that are good. I'm sure they got 15 Sonys in there hands pouring over all that to see what it can do. But heck I like to be in that board room. Lol
The hope is that since the firmware is still a work in process and if the hardware allows, there is still a change we may get an e-shutter on it.
p.26 #19 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
Actually it's the opposite Dan as the pixels got smaller we got better DR and noise but the real shift was moving to CMOS and this chip is outstanding in noise and DR. I think nice to know the history of MF and where we came from because this is a big jump in technology now with this CMOS and I can't wait to see what Sony does next both in 35 and MF. Bottom line here though there is no need to worry about the quality of this sensor, it's a proven sensor. Folks are going to love it especially if the come from 35 today.
DR did not increase because pixels got smaller, but despite the shrinking of photo site dimensions and increase in their density — through other advances in sensor design that allowed simultaneous downsizing of photo sites (and reduction of space between them) and other improvements in chip design and software that have affected dynamic range/noise.
When all else is equal, larger photo sites still have the advantage of being able to record a larger range of luminosity levels — e.g. more dynamic range. Current MF sensors benefit from this (and the other advances) in the same ways that smaller sensors do.
And I don't understand where you get the idea that I'm "worrying about the quality of this sensor."! I said nothing of the sort — though if wrote something in error and you can point me to it I'll edit to clarify. My only point was that potential users need to consider a range of things when they contemplate moving to a larger format. Again, that seems pretty non-controversial, right?
p.26 #20 · Official: Hasselblad X1D-50c Medium Format Mirrorless
GMPhotography wrote:
Regardless of the DR there is just a ton of adjustment though and raw files can take quite a bit of adjustments. The Kodak sensors like this P45,P30 and P25 are all pretty big pixel pitches . Some call them big fat pixels and color is very rich coming off these sensors.
My theory is that bigger pixels allows for a stronger color filter array which translates to better tonal range and color response. All things being equal, MF sensors will always have the advantage.
